




• Am .\v. 

>'iy 








■ : ■ 


\\vSi^\'^SS^5i'v 

■;\ ;^vp ! ' ! 4 N m 

t;- .•’ \ 

Ilk. Ir v^i ^ 








JwivWWvvvwNvvvwvVvCwV'' 


/V. 




..v- V\.. 


77 v 






.. r 


- X\vi 
Swv 

• *vV 


»M| 

; .\»* ■..*' >'. •'•• 

V £ 


% 






7 } .^V-; x vk 


®N?sss5SsSi 









































. 

_ 






















































. ■ 


♦ 


















* 








































- 

































































& 























































. 


■ . 









































■ 

• ' 
































































































































































Gtihi-c/ <i d/^-e^e^ df du/f-tcdd fzde dd-a 

d/^td d^idfc/: d/te-wt icz A<x cf ddtUdd df/.ddd 


/ </ 

dd’-e 


'.<p y -Ctd-MZ- 'L-tl-e'tp. 


idd-add? /ieti-1 


u&'t-c-e; izdz 


■d, dlt'Vf, '. 

■adid/ (Qdte- 


</ ^-'ed.-e d/t-ad^f d^e (Qi 


■C' 

dde. 










































■ 

\ t ' 
<1 








-•» 































‘ ’ ■ 

t ; > 






■ ■* 





















* 

: - . 












>r 


* 




•* 





















- 






»1 







" 




tv - 








» 


1 *< 


- 




v • 




4* 


V 


< 


, . '• 

• * '" V* v fc* 



V 



‘'« 






v * r 









; - 






V 




V 






V? 












V 

► • 










t *» 






ONE FOLD 


AND 


ONE SHEPHERD. 


v/ - 

By BEY. JOHN SCOTFOKD, 

♦ \ 

AUTHOR OF “THE JUDD FAMILY; OR, AN EVENING VISIT AND WHAT 

CAME OF IT.” 


“United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” 

“ *1. a vavTEQ ev <L<Ji, csv, narep, kv kpol nayu kv ooi, Iva kcu avrnl n 

t}uiv iv u> civ, Iva o noouog mc-evcy, on ov pe an tore dag.” — Jolin, xvii: 21 



3>.k£. 
t 


CHICAGO: 

FAIKBANKS & CO. 
1878. 




The Library 
of Congress 

WASHINGTON 

COPYRIGHT, 

BY FAIRBANKS & CO- 


1878. 









AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 


In presenting this volume to the favorable consideration of 
the Christian public, the author offers the following facts as 
reasons for its publication: 

1. The evil of divisions in the body of Christ, ever which the 
most intelligent and pious of the several denominations mourn, 
is at this day commanding deep and prayerful attention, and 
has led to the adoption, by over five hundred prominent Chris¬ 
tian men and ministers of different denominations, of the fol¬ 
lowing principle in favor of visible unity among Christians: 

First. “ Whatever occasion may have existed in times past for 
the division of the Church into separate denominations, we hold 
that the efforts of Christians should henceforth be positive and 
continuous toward an actual and visible oneness. 

Second. “ While opposed to any such concentration of power 
as would trench upon the inherent liberty of the individual 
Christian, or Society of Disciples, we hold that the evangelical 
believers and congregations of each locality should aim to 
manifest to the world their essent ; al unity in faith and spirit. 

Third. “ We hold those churches to be evangelical which, 
maintaining the Holy Scriptures to be the only infallible rule 
of faith and practice, do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (the 
only begotten of the Father, King of Kings, and Lord of 
Lords, in whom dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead bodily, 
and who was made sin for us, though knowing no sin, bearing 
our sins in His body on the tree,) as the only name under 
Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” 

These principles, so endorsed, and 'becoming the watchword 
and rallying point of the friends of visible Church unity, have 
led to the publication of the Church Union as the medium of 
discussing the question in its different phases, with the view of 
educating the public mind in favor of such visible unity as 

( 3 ) 



4 


PRFFACE, 


shall do away with denominational names, and the divisions 
upon which they are based. 

2. While the essential evil of sect divisions cannot be denied, 
yet few, I fear, realize the extent of the evil. Besides the rival- 
ship of several denominations on the same field, with the party 
spirit and jealousies incident to this state of things, there is a 
fearful w T aste of ministerial time and talent, as also of the Lord’s 
money, in building supernumerary meeting houses and sup¬ 
porting three or more ministers, where one could do the work 
needed better than the three or more in the present order of 
things. It is a very low estimate to say that the time of over 
three thousand ministers is worse than thrown away, and over 
three millions of dollars to support them, with the other Church 
expenses. And what is gained to the cause of truth and right¬ 
eousness by all this outlay? Absolutely nothing.* 


* As an illustration of this waste, I will relate the case of a village in Kan¬ 
sas of one thousand inhabitants. In 1873, and for several previous years, 
there were four evangelical Churches in the place, viz.. Methodist, Baptist, 
Congregational, and Presbyterian. Each of these Churches owned a small 
meeting house, and employed the time of a minister. The strongest of 
these was barely able to sustain its pastor without foreign aid, and giving 
him but a meager support. The other three were obliged to depend on aid 
from the Missionary Boards of their respective denominations, and together 
drew annually from $800 to $1,000 for that purpose. These Churches were in 
apparent harmony. Their pastors exchanged pulpits, and they and their 
people worked together in revival efforts. They all preached and believed 
the same gospel. There was nothing but one or two unimportant Shibboleths 
that divided them. 

Now, had these four Churches remanded their pet ideas to the realm of 
private opinion, and united on the basis of a simple fellowship in Christ, 
they could have built one meeting house large enough to hold them all, at 
half the cost of the four, and could have supported an able minister, without 
any Missionary aid; while the funds annually consumed to sustain their 
sect organizations could have been better employed in sustaining missions 
among the really destitute in other parts of the country; and three of the 
four ministers could have supplied these destitute fields. 

There are thousands of places, hamlets and villages, where the same state 
of things exist, often with more of rivalship and contention than was man¬ 
ifest in that Kansas village. In all such cases there is a double waste, a 
waste of money and ministerial talent, and a waste of religious influence 
and moral power, that could be greatly increased by the union for which 
Christ prayed. 

If the union for which we plead could take place, one thousand of these 
ministers could be employed in the destitute portions of our country, and 


PREFACE. 


5 


This conclusion is emphasized by the fact that the age of dog¬ 
matism is now past, and old time prejudices are fading away. 

There is now a real, though partial fellowship between the 
members of the several evangelical denominations; and also a 
substantial agreement upon all the vital doctrines of the Gospel; 
while the points of divergence are upon things which do not 
affect Christian character, and are therefore non-essential. 

Now, while each denomination may think its own methods 
of Christian and Church work to be the best, all of which may 
appear plausible, 1 submit that by retaining the excellencies, 
and eliminating the defects of each, they can all come together 
on a common basis of brotherhood and visible unity for wor¬ 
ship and Christian work, and thus present a united front to the 
common foe. 

Rome boasts of her unity, and points to the divisions among 
Protestants as her plea for universal dominion. The rivalships 
and dissensions between denominations are the occasion of the 
scoffs and jeers of infidels and skeptics, and a fruitful cause of 
unbelief. I would lay these facts home to the hearts of Chris¬ 
tian men, and ask if there is not great need of a reform in this 
matter. 

There is much confusion and misapprehension in the minds 
of many good men, who see the evil, but do not see the remedy, 
and who suppose that visible unity means the triumph of some 
denomination by swallowing up all the rest. 

It is enough to say that visible Church unity can never take 
place on any purely denominational platform. 

It is the author’s design in this work to set forth, in as clear 
a light as possible, the principles, and the only ones, as he 
thinks, upon which it is possible to secure an external and vis¬ 
ible unity, that shall be in harmony with the spiritual unity 
upon which it is based. 

No Christian can object to the platform upon which the Apos¬ 
tolic Churches stood. If that can be found, then the basis of 

two thousand as missionaries in heathen lands. At the same time the 
money now wasted on sect enterprises would amply sustain them in this 
missionary work. 

With such an added force to our foreign missionary work, and the self- 
propagating force they would evoke, it would take hut a generation to bring 
the world to Christ. 


6 


TKEFACE, 


unity will be attained. There can be but one right basis. All 
else must be defective, compared to that. Now, if we admit 
that the Apostles acted under divine inspiration and the instruc¬ 
tions of the Master, they must have adopted that right basis. 

We invite the reader to a careful consideration of this question 
as presented in this work. 

One of the most fruitful sources of dissension and division 
among professing Christians is the subject of Baptism. This 
question is therefore discussed in its various aspects; not in a 
dogmatic spirit, nor as a party Shibboleth, but in a purely 
fraternal and undenominational spirit, and with the view of 
removing it to the realm of private personal opinion, that it 
may no longer be a bar to visible Church unity. 

The work is written in the half narrative, half conversational 
style, and is a history of the orgauization of a Union Undenom¬ 
inational Church in Kansas, where the scene is laid. 

The discussions, that form a prominent feature of the book, 
took place, as a means of removing the obstacles to union, and 
of preparing the way for its organization. In the case of this 
Church, Christians from six different denominations came 
together, as a Church, on the above basis of Christian fellowship. 

That every reader will be satisfied with the arguments ad¬ 
vanced or the conclusions reached, is more than could be 
expected, considering the prejudices and prepossessions attend¬ 
ant upon denominational training, and our partial ignorance. 
Nor does the author deem the work above criticism. He would 
therefore have the public regard it as a stepping stone to some¬ 
thing better. In the earnest hope that the reader will weigh 
with candor the facts and arguments presented, and give them 
the consideration the importance of the subject demands, and 
with devout prayer for the blessing of the Prince of Unity and 
Love to accompany the reading of it, the author sends it forth 
to its work. 


Chicago, III., Feb., 1878. 


JOHN SCOTFORD. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER I. 

The Young Bride — Her Apostrophe to the Flowers — Joha 
Lovell — His Removal to Kansas — Reasons for — He a Col¬ 
lege Graduate and she of a Female Seminary— Her Impres¬ 
sions of Kansas — A Description of the Lay of the Land — 
The Family Altar Set Up — The Question of Religious 
Meetings — The First Prayer Meeting Arranged For_25-34 

CHAPTER II. 

The First Prayer Meeting — Succeeded by Others — Their 
Influence on the Neighborhood — Additional Settlers — The 
School House Built — Meetings Transferred to It — The 
Sabbath School — Occasional Visits of Ministers — Their 
Efforts to Organize Denominational Churches a Failure — 
Why?— Visit of Rev. J. Coleman, from Massachusetts — 
His Sermon a Plea for Union —The Resolutions Offered by 
Esquire Benson — Adopted — A Committee Chosen to Report 
a Plan of Union, if Common Ground can be Found — Their 
Separate Denominational Proclivities.35-45 

CHAPTER III. 

Meeting of Committee — Gravity of their Task — Prayer for 
Enlightenment and Divine Guidance —Their Separate Views 
Expressed — Esquire Benson willing to Meet on Some Com¬ 
mon Ground, if the Church is Thoroughly Evangelical — 
John Lovell Cares Nothing about a Name—Wants it Unsec¬ 
tarian— Thinks it Best to Copy after the Apostolic Churches 
as Near as that can be Ascertained — Wants the Church 
Independent, but in Fellowship with all Christians—The 
Other Members Approve the Plan — It is Adopted — Mr. 

CT) 




$ 


CONTENTS. 


Coleman Invited to Give his Views of the Polity of the 
Apostolic Churches — In Complying, he Shows what the 
Bible Teaches — Confirmed by Church History.47-67 

CHAPTER IV. 

The Discussion Continued —A Difficulty Started — Where can 
Aid be got in the Support of a Pastor, if the Church is 
Undenominational? — Mr.Lovell’s Opinion—The Bible Rule 
of Giving Stated — Aid can be Had — What Constitutes a 
Sect Church — The Church a Fellowship — Mr. Lovell Op¬ 
posed to a Sect Name — Reasons Why.68-82 

CHAPTER V. 

Called to Order — What Further Questions Need Investiga¬ 
tion— Mr. Ennis Raises the Question of Baptism — Love 
for the Brethren — His Difficulty Stated — Argued Pro and 
Con — Mr. Ennis Admits his Views may be Wrong — A 
Review of the Question for the Sake of Unity — Conflicting 
Views Stated — Christian Baptism What — The Spiritual 
Baptism — Mr. Lovell’s Views of the Uses of Water Bap¬ 
tism— They Agree to Have the Subject Discussed More 
Thoroughly—Mr. Lovell and Mr. Ennis to Discuss the 
Question — To Get Others to Aid Them—Adjourn to Meet 
Again the Next Evening.83-100 

CHAPTER VI. 

Reasons for the Name Unionville — The Influences that Give 
Character to a Community — Mr. Ford, the Baptist Minister, 
Called to Aid Mr. Ennis — Mr. Lovell Opens the Discussion 
— Mr. Ford States his Views — Mr. Lovell’s Deductions 
from Them — The Scriptural Argument for Immersion by 
Mr. Ford — Reviewed by Mr. Lovell — Mr. Ford Appeals to 
the Philology of the Word Baptizo .101-108 

CHAPTER VII. 

The Philology of the Word Stated by Mr. Lovell and Sup¬ 
ported by Quotations from the Greek Classics — The Word 
a Generic and not a Specific Term — It Means Subordination, 






CONTENTS. 


3 


Changed Condition , etc.— It does not Mean Action, neither 
Dip, nor Immerse, but Merse — The Definition Overthrows 
the Argument for Immersion, as the Meaning of the 


Word.109-123 

CHAPTER VIII. 

The Philological Argument Continued .124-141 

CHAPTER IX. 


The Historical Argument Stated and Reviewed — Ancient En¬ 
gravings of Baptismal Scenes — What do they Teach. .142-167 

CHAPTER X. 

The Engravings Carefully Examined by the Committee — The 
Inferences Drawn from Them — Mr. Ford Thinks Baptism a 
Symbol of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ — Mr. 
Lovell Raises Insurmountable Objections to that Idea — 
Water Baptism the Symbol of the Spiritual — Should 
they Agree as to Mode? — The Argument from Analogy — 
The Mode Adapted to all Climates — Seasons — Conditions 
of Health or Siekness — Which Mode'Best Adapted to Col¬ 
lectedness of Thought and Calm Devotional Feeling — Ad¬ 
journ to Inquire into the Question of who are Proper Sub¬ 
jects of Baptism, on the Ensuing Evening.169-189 

CHAPTER XI. 

Beautiful Evening — Mr. Ford the Guest of Mr. Ennis — They 
Review the Discussions of the Evening on their Way Home — 
Mr. Ford’s Change of View in Regard to the Mode — His 
View of the Difference between Generic and Specific Words 
— Gives Illustrations — Mr. Ennis is Satisfied, etc.190-196 

CHAPTER XII. 

The Third Meeting of the Committee — The Moderator States 
the Question to be Brought in Review—Points of Agree¬ 
ment Stated by Mr. Lovell — Mr. Lovell’s Opinion that the 
Children of Believers should also be Baptized — Mr. Ford 
Thinks Not and Demands the Proof — The Repartee — Mr. 






10 


CONTENTS. 


Ford Announces his Change of View in Regard to the 
Mode — Mr. Ennis does the Same — Mr. Ford States his 
Objections to Infant Baptism — A Negative Faith — Does 
the Bible Forbid their Baptism? — The Argument for Infant 
Baptism Drawn from Matth. xviii: 5, 6, and Luke xviii: 15, 
16, 17.197-216 


CHAPTER XIII. 

Mr. Lovell Requests Mr. Coleman to Assume the Affirmative 
of the Question — He does So — His Argument — Infants 
Once Received the Sealing Ordinance of the Church by Com¬ 
mand of God — The Abrahamic and Christian Church the 
Same, Proven from Matth. xxi: 43, and Rom. xi: 16, 24, and 
Eph. ii: 11, 22 —The Abrahamic a Gospel Covenant ..217-232 

CHAPTER XIV. 

The Argument on the Abrahamic Covenant Continued..233.242 
CHAPTER XV. 

Mr. Ford Declines to Answer — Only a Hearer — The Burden 
of Proof Thrown on Mr. Coleman — He Proceeds a Step 
Further and Proves Christ to be a Minister of the Circum¬ 
cision, and the Essential Baptism to be Christian Circum¬ 
cision .243-250 


CHAPTER XVI. 

Poetry — The Triumph of Truth —The Varying Emotions of 
Mr. Ford’s Mind —The Argument Resumed — Mr. Ford 
Flies Back to the Silence of the New Testament as an Argu¬ 
ment against It — That Apparent Silence a Proof in Favor 
of Infant Baptism — Is it a Relic of Popery ? — Shown not 
t0 .251-263 


CHAPTER XVII. 

The Historic Argument Proves the Practice to have Come 
Down from the Apostles by the Command of Christ — Sum¬ 
mary of the Arguments — Closing Reflections.264-278 






CONTENTS. 


11 


CHAPTER XVIII. 

The Committee Hold a Third Meeting — Mr. Ford’s Address 
Announcing his Change of View — He Gives the Committee 
the Right Hand of Fellowship on this Unsectarian Platform 
— Two Sub Committees Appointed, One to Prepare a Con¬ 
stitution, and the Other, Articles of Faith — Recess — Com¬ 
mittees Report — Both Reports Accepted and Adopted — 
Time Fixed for a Meeting to Report and Organize the 
Church — Adjourned.279-292 

CHAPTER XIX. 

The Growing Spirit of Union — Causes of It — The Excuses 
for Sectism and Arguments for Unsound — Necessity for 
Union..293-296 


CHAPTER XX. 

The Meeting of the Brethren to Hear the Report of the Com¬ 
mittee— Their Work Approved — Mr. Lovell’s Suggestions 
Call a Council of Brethren of Different Denominations to 
Advise and Assist in the Oganization — It Meets their Views 

— The Council Called Composed of Presbyterian, Methodist, 
Baptist and Congregationalist — A Time Fixed for Council 
to Meet and Organize the Church — Adjourned —The Coun¬ 
cil Meets, is Opened with a Sermon by Rev. Mr. Coleman — 

A Synopsis of his Discourse — Mr. Lovell Gives a History of 
the Steps Taken and the Reasons Therefor — The Council 
Approve their Work and Advise the Organization — Parts 
Assigned —The Organization Effected — Deacons Ordained 

— Adjournment.297-301 


CHAPTER XXI. 

The Object and Importance of the Stated Ministry of the 
Word — Appreciating these Truths the Church are Anxious 
to Secure the Services of Mr. Coleman —The Question of 
Raising his Salary—Mr. Lovell Proposes the Bible Rule of 
Giving a Tenth — The Plan is Proved Feasible— They 
Engage Mr. Coleman as Pastor — He Suggests Paul’s Rule 
of Weekly Giving —A Difficulty—It is Removed-302-319 





12 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XXII. 

Application f r Aid in Mr. Coleman’s Support Granted — Mr. 
Coleman Bring3 on liis Colony — The Work Prospers — 
Additions to the Church — They will Soon Need to Build a 
Meeting House — The Church Elect Esquire Benson and 
John Lovell as Delegates to Represent the Church in the - 
Meeting of the Association of Churches of Christ, and to 
Seek a Recognized Fellowship with them for Counsel and 
Co-operation in Christian Work — They Attend — Difference 
Between this Body and a Presbytery — Esquire Benson 
Much Delighted with the Mee'ing — On their Return Messrs. 
Benson and Lovell Talk Over the New Testament Principles 
of Churches Polity — The Way in which a General Visible 
Church Unity can be Attained — The True Idea of the 
Church—An Organized Fellowship of Equals — Nothing 


More, Nothing Less.320-331 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

The same subject continued.332-347 

CHAPTER XXIV. 


Rev. Mr. Coleman Returns from the Association in Company 
with Rev. Mr. Truman — He Narrates to Him the Discus¬ 
sions at Unionville Preparatory to the Organization of that 
Church — Mr. Truman Much Pleased — Mr. Coleman Un¬ 
folds his Idea of the Proper Methods for Promoting Visible 
Unity among Christians — He Points Out the Folly of Efforts 
by Men to Help God Govern his own Church by Adding 
other Fellowships to that Required by Christ.348-354 

CHAPTER XXV. 

The Practical Results of Union — The Church Raises One 
Hundred Dollars in Excess of their Pledges the First Year — 
The Audience Becomes so Large that they Pledge Six Hun¬ 
dred Dollars toward Mr. Coleman’s Salary the Second Year, 
and also Raise Fifteen Hundred Dollars in the Community 
toward the Erection of a Meeting House — It is Finished 
and Dedicated in the Spring of the Third Year — The Dedi¬ 
cation— The Fourth Year they Assume Mr. Coleman’s 
Entire Support and Begin to Aid the A. H. M. Society in 
Turn.355-366 






CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XXII. 

Application for Aid in Mr. Coleman’s Support Granted — Mr. 
Coleman Brings on his Colony — The Work Prospers — 
Additions to the Church — They will Soon Need to Build a 
Meeting House — The Church Elect Esquire Benson and 
John Lovell as Delegates to Represent the Church in the 
Meeting of the Association of Churches of Christ, and to 
Seek a Recognized Fellowship with them for Counsel and 
Co-operation in Christian Work — They Attend — Difference 
Between this Body and a Presbytery — Esquire Benson 
Much Delighted with the Meeting — On their Return Messrs. 
Benson and Lovell Talk Over the New Testament Principles 
of Churches Polity — The Way in which a General Visible 
Church Unity can be Attained — The True Idea of the 
Church—An Organized Fellowship of Equals — Nothing 


More, Nothing Less.320-331 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

The same subject continued...333-347 

CHAPTER XXIV. 


Rev. Mr. Coleman Returns from the Association in Company 
with Rev. Mr. Truman — He Narrates to Him the Discus¬ 
sions at Unionville Preparatory to the Organization of that 
Church — Mr. Truman Much Pleased — Mr. Coleman Un¬ 
folds his Idea of the Proper Methods for Promoting Visible 
Unity among Christians — He Points Out the Folly of Efforts 
by Men to Help God Govern his own Church by Adding 
other Fellowships to that Required by Christ.348-354 

CHAPTER XXV. 

The Practical Results of Union —The Church Raises One 
Hundred Dollars in Excess of their Pledges the First Year — 
The Audience Becomes so Large that they Pledge Six Hun¬ 
dred Dollars toward Mr. Coleman’s Salary the Second Year, 
and also Raise Fifteen Hundred Dollars in the Community 
toward the Erection of a Meeting House —It is Finished 





TO 


LL HIS FORMER J^ARISHONE^S, 


TO ALL WHO DEPLORE DIVISIONS IN THE BODY OP CHRIST, 


TO ALL WHO WISH 


TO WORK FOR THE VISIBLE ONENESS OF CHRIST’S DISCIPLES, 


AND 


WHO ARE INQUIRING FOR A COMMON GROUND OF UNITY, 


This Book is Affectionately Dedicated, by 


THE AUTHOR. 


I NTHO DUCTIO N. 


By Bey. W. C. McCune. 


It is demonstrable that Christians living in the 
same city, or community, cannot form themselves 
into different sects with different party names, and 
conflicting laws, without violating the laws of Christ, 
who is sole Law Giver in His Church. 

1. The Church has only one God, one Savior, one 
Holy Spirit, and one Bible. 

She is herself described in Scripture as “ one flock,” 
“one body,” “one spouse,” “one vineyard,” and if it 
be claimed that these descriptions refer to an invisible 
unity, it ought also to be conceded that this unity 
should not be contradicted by flagrant visible divisions. 

2. All those things by which an outward, visible 
organization is effected, are as Christ instituted them, 
one and the same for all the world; and not two or 
more. 

He has given us but one Gospel to be believed and 
obeyed. He has instituted but one Baptism, and one 
Lord’s Supper, one worship, and one government and 
discipline. But these are the very things by which 
the organization of the Christian Church is effected. 

( 15 ) 




16 


INTRODUCTION. 


Christ’s specifications concerning some of these 
things are very brief and simple; but in every case 
they are a perfect unit. Nor did He ever in anything 
that pertains to the organization of the Church, pro¬ 
vide one thing for one class of believers, and another 
thing for another. Nor did He ever vary the same 
thing, even in its circumstantial details, thereby 
to provide for two or more organizations in His 
Church. 

Christ may have left much at liberty in the organi¬ 
zation of His Church, but ought not we to leave just 
as much at liberty? Christ did not demand the abso¬ 
lute uniformity of all believers. He only required 
union, tempered with forbearance. 

He did indeed ordain that His robe should be seam¬ 
less, but not that the threads of warp and woof should 
be of one size, and strength, and color. 

Now, if Christ is, in very deed, the sole Legislator 
in His Church, then every thing which He has left to 
Christian liberty, we should so leave. Whatever He 
has left indefinite, we should leave indefinite. If He 
has given no system of metaphysical theology to be 
enforced by organic law, we should give none. What 
He has made law, we should accept as law, and noth¬ 
ing else. If such be the case, then all the denomina¬ 
tional divisions existing, whether produced by the 
enactment of denominational laws which Christ has 
not enacted, or by refusing to enact laws which He 
has plainly made necessary in His Church, are con¬ 
clusive proof that somewhere there is provoking 
usurpation, and grievous sin in the sight of God. 

3. The Savior, before His ascension, invested His 


INTRODUCTION. 


IT 


Apostles with authority to organize the Church under 
the Christian dispensation. But these Apostles, di¬ 
vinely inspired and commissioned, never organized 
two or more denominations in any place. They made 
obligatory, as Christ’s law, in every place, the very 
same gospel as to its truths, its duties, and its salva¬ 
tion ; the very same sacraments, the same discipline, 
and the same forbearance. Never did they promul¬ 
gate one thing in one place, and another thing in 
another, as the law of Christ, in this matter of Church 
organization. 

4. The discipline of the Church confirms the 
example of one organization. In the fifth chapter of 
1st Corinthians, Paul gave directions to exclude the 
incestuous person from the communion of the Church; 
but not with the view to the establishment of another 
denomination in which incest should be rulable and 
respectable. 

In Titus, iii: 10, he commands “A man that is an 
heretic, after the first and second admonitions, reject 
but he certainly did not intend thereby the organiza¬ 
tion of a new denomination, to be styled the “ Liberal 
Christians” into which all heretics might congregate. 
His purpose was, that heretics* should go back to the 
world to which they belonged. 

Neither did the Apostles intend that their suspen¬ 
sions, or excommunications, on account of heresy or 
immorality, should be a mere grudging, ill-mannered 
certificate to some other denomination, recognized as 
soundly Christian. 

* The term heretic refers to conduct, and not to creed. 

2 


18 


INTRODUCTION. 


5. The Christian law of forbearance makes one 
organization attainable. We read, Eph. iv : 4, “ For¬ 
bearing one another in love;” and, Col. iii : 13, 
u Forbearing one another.” 

But we are immediately pressed in the interest of 
schism with these questions: What errors would you 
forbear? How many errors would you forbear? 

The inspired injunction does not devolve upon us 
the definite settlement of either of these questions. 
It is not a definite list of errors we are enjoined to 
forbear, but a class of clearly defined persons. For¬ 
bearance was to be extended to every saint, to everv 
faithful brother in Christ. 

Does any man give satisfactory evidence that he has 
been renewed by the Holy Spirit; that he believes on 
the Lord Jesus Christ; that he is one of the Lord’s 
redeemed; with that man as a member of the Church 
of Christ, we should lovingly forbear. 

If this law of Christian forbearance were everywhere 
obeyed, it would bring together, in organic union, all, 
in every place, who mutually acknowledge that they 
have been redeemed by the same Savior, and renewed 
by the same Holy Spirit, and are journeying to the 
same Celestial City. 

The result would be that soon men everywhere 
would be convinced that Jesus is the true Messiah, 
and the only Savior; and the whole world would 
speedily be converted to God, as the Savior has taught 
us in his intercessory prayer. 

ONLY CHRISTIAN UNION. 

We distinctly and definitely disavow all schemes of 


INTRODUCTION. 


19 


organic Cliurcli Union, which do not explicitly and 
sincerely propose to make the Union, as imperfect 
Christians can so make it, a Union of Christians 
only. “ Be ye not unequally yoked together with un¬ 
believers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with 
unrighteousness? and what communion hath light 
with darkness?” 

We propose no union with Unitarians. Whilst 
those of them who most plausibly veil their unbelief, 
and in their false gospel affirm that Christ was a mere 
creature, when the Scriptures clearly teach that Christ 
is “ over all, God blessed forever; ” the eternal and the 
uncreated; and whilst they deny, as to the very sub¬ 
stance thereof, the doctrine that Christ died for our 
sins; and whilst they deny that there is any such 
person as the Holy Spirit, and consequently deny that 
the sinner’s heart is renewed by the Holy Spirit, or 
that it needs any such renewal; the Holy Scriptures 
most emphatically teach to the contrary. Whoever 
rejects the Christ of the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit, 
in His regenerating work on the heart, rejects the 
Gospel in its entirety and belongs to another kingdom. 

We would also eschew an organic Union which 
would include within it, congregations which refuse 
to unite with their sister congregations in a clear and 
public profession of their belief of the necessary 
things pertaining to our salvation, and the equally 
necessary things pertaining to the organization of the 
Christian Church. 

We do not propose to pour dead, stagnant water 
into the pure living spring, nor to tie dead and 
withered branches to the living vine. 


20 


INTRODUCTION. 


NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC UNION. 

We do not propose an organic Union on the princi¬ 
ples of the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Church is not the rule .concerning salvation; 
nor concerning the organization of the Christian 
Church. The Bible is the only rule. The Church 
should be organized by Christian men; and their only 
rule or province is, to decide, with prayerful judgment, 
what the Bible laws of Church organization are. 

In organizing and carrying forward the work of the 
Church, we should demand of members, and ministers, 
not one jot or tittle, as qualifications for membership, 
and ministerial fellowship, any thing which is not 
clearly required as terms of this fellowship in the 
Scriptures. 

Uor should any one be received to membership who 
cannot assent to those Scriptural requirements, from 
clear convictions in the exercise of his own private 
judgment. 

We would not, even for the sake of organic Chris¬ 
tian Union, abate one iota of the strictness, or the 
extent of the most sensitive individual conscientious¬ 
ness. 

But cannot a Christian man conscientiously think 
and act for himself, without demanding as a prerequi¬ 
site to Church union, that he shall also, even in non- 
essential things, be permitted to think and act for 
others. 

Has not the Holy Spirit given such oneness in 
necessary things to all believers; and such oneness of 
enlightenment to all who are called to preach the 


INTRODUCTION. 


21 


Gospel, that there is a substantial basis for an organic 
Union which will strictly conserve individual consci¬ 
entiousness, and only provide for the safe exercise of a 
beautiful catholicity toward one another concerning 
those things about which they are diversely minded? 

If catholicity is not asked to go beyond the circum¬ 
ference of Christianity, may not conscientiousness 
and forbearance undertake the work, and consummate 
the organic Union of the one Church of the Living 
God? 

If then, Christ has authorized but one Church; it 
inspired Apostles organized but one Church; if the 
discipline of the New Testament contemplates only 
one Church; if the law of Christian forbearance makes 
one Church attainable; the momentous question arises: 
What is the true organization of the one body, which 
should be the visible manifestation of the invisible 
Spiritual Unity? What is the true basis of organic 
Christian Union? 

We submit, first, as the great principle of visible 
organic unity, that 

I. Organic Christian Union should include all 
Christians living in the same community; and none 
hut Christians , in so far as fallible Christian men 
may be able to judge. 

If we propose to make our Union not a Methodist, 
or Baptist, or a Presbyterian Union, but a genuine 
Christian Union, extending as far, and no farther than 
the limits of Christianity; then this proposition is 
self-evident and needs no demonstration. 

A Union of all Christians , and none others , is 
Christian Union . 


22 


INTRODUCTION. 


But the question immediately arises: By what rule 
shall we determine who are Christians f 

The answer to this question is plain and easy. By 
the great Protestant rule: The infallible Scriptures . 

The Holy Scriptures explicitly state the things which 
are essential to salvation. 

1. Faith in Jesus Christ is essential to salvation. 

“ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt 
be saved. 1 ’ 

2. Regeneration is essential to salvation. 

“ Except a man be born again, he cannot see the 
Kingdom of God.” 

3. Repentance is essential to and secures salvation. 

“ Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” 

4. Obedience to the Gospel is essential also to 
salvation. 

5. A love of the brethren is also an essential fruit 
of a regenerated soul. 

“We know that we have passed from death unto 
life, because we love the brethren.” 

6. Love to Christ is essential to salvation, and is 
also the result of His love to us. 

“We love Him, because He first loved us.” 

Of each of these graces the Bible affirms that it is 
essential to salvation, and of each it declares that it 
secures salvation. If any one of the six is wanting, 
the man is not saved; if any one of them is present, 
the man is saved. For each one is the work of the 
Holy Spirit, and He does His work fully as to essential 
things. If He gives one saving grace, He gives them 
all. 

And, upon inquiry, it will be found that all over 




INTRODUCTION. 


23 


the world, in every place, and in every denomination, 
wherever any man gives clear positive proof that he 
possesses any of these graces which the Scriptures 
affirm to be essential to salvation, that same man will 
give conclusive evidence that he possesses every one 
of them. 








































































■ 























































• 







♦ 









* 
































ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

i ■ 


CHAPTER I. 

Come forth, oh! ye children of gladness, come! 

"Where the violets lie may be now your home; 

Ye of the rose lip, and dew-bright eye, 

With bounding footsteps to meet me, fly! 

With the lyre, and the wreath, and the joyous lay, 

Come forth to the sunshihe, I may not stay. 

Away from the dwellings of care-worn men, 

The waters are sparkling in grove and glen! 

Away from the chamber and sullen hearth, 

The young leaves are dancing in breezy mirth! 

Their light stems thrill to the wildwood strains, 

And youth is abroad in my green domains. 

— Mrs. Hemans' Voice of Spring. 

t KD this is to be our Kansas home?” So spake 
a young bride, just from her native State — 
Michigan. She and her husband were stand¬ 
ing on an elevated point of the prairie, overlooking a 
broad valley, with its streamlet, and affording them a 
fine view of their cottage, and the broad acres which 
they hoped to call their own. 

“ Yes,” said her husband, “and what do you think 
of the prospect? ” 

“It is beautiful; but how unlike our Michigan 

25 ) 



26 ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

home. Why, John, do see the prairie flowers already 
in bloom! You dear little things, how dare you 
show your smiling faces so early in the spring? Look 
out, or Jack Frost will nip you; for April is a treach¬ 
erous month for flowers.” 

John Lovell and his amiable wife had been married 
but a short time. They were both from a Puritan an¬ 
cestry, and were well educated, he being a graduate 
from a western college, and she from a ladies’ semi¬ 
nary. 

At one time, in the course of his studies, he had 
thought of entering the ministry, and this had given 
shape to his studies; but having an impediment in his 
speech, which, fearing he could not overcome, he had 
decided to work for Christ in some other calling. 

Unlike too many who secure a collegiate education, 
he determined to devote his life to agriculture, esteem¬ 
ing the peaceful pursuit of husbandry as far more en¬ 
nobling than the excitements, jealousies, and rivalries 
of professional or political life. 

The professions of law and medicine were already 
crowded; but here was a field where he could develop 
his manhood, and turn his knowledge of the natural 
sciences to practical account. 

By economy and patient labor he had accumulated 
a few hundred dollars; but in his native State lands 
were too high in price, except in the northern part, 
where the seasons were too short, and the expense ot 
clearing away the timber too great to suit him. and so 
he concluded to settle in Kansas. 

Following the track of emigration, John Lovell had 
selected a beautiful spot, at the.outskirts of the settle- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


27 


ment, on tlie rolling prairie, where it slopes off intc 
the valley ot one ot the finely wooded streams of Cen¬ 
tral Kansas. 

Prom the elevated spot where they w r ere standing, 
they could view the broad expanse of prairie, stretch¬ 
ing away for miles, and trace the meandering of the 
stream by the curves in the woodland which fringed 
its banks. 

A few emigrants, preceding Mr. Lovell, had taken 
homesteads on the stream, but he was there in time to 
enter a claim of one hundred and sixty acres, one cor¬ 
ner of which embraced a portion of the stream and 
its timber, giving him one hundred acres of choice 
bottom land, all gently sloping to the stream; while 
sixty acres ran up into the bluff, and were well stored 
with limestone, easily accessible, and affording excel¬ 
lent building material. 

He preceded his wife a few weeks, and having se¬ 
lected his homestead, had erected a neat little cottage, 
which would serve as an addition to a larger one, 
when their growing means should justify it. 

Mrs. Lovell had arrived, the previous evening, at 
the railroad station, where her husband met her, a few 
miles away, with his horses and carriage, and in the 
twilight had introduced her to their new home. 

It was one of the beautiful sunny mornings, so 
common in Kansas — the first after her arrival — that 
he led her to the eminence, back of their cottage, in 
order that from thence she might behold the broad 
expanse of beautiful prairie, with its gentle undula¬ 
tions, stretching out before them, like massive waves 
of the ocean, and now covered with the early green of 


28 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


spring. It was this scene which drew forth the ex¬ 
clamation, “Beautiful,” from the young bride. 

Looking toward the southwest, they could trace the 
the stream, by its belt of timber, and its broad valley. 
Here and there could be seen the cottages of the set¬ 
tlers, in the distance, some half hidden by the curves 
in the belt of wood, near which they were built. 

A few cows were visible in the distance, grazing 
peacefully upon the tender grass. These were the be¬ 
ginning of the vast herds which now dot the prairies, 
and form so important an item in the revenues of the 
farmers of that young State. 

The nearest neighbor was Esquire Benson, who 
lived half a mile distant, on the bank of the stream. 
Being first on the ground, he had selected the choicest 
belt of woodland, where a tributary comes in from the 
north, thus forming a barrier to the fierce prairie fires 
which had for ages swept over the hills and valleys. 
At these protected points the belts of timber are 
wider, and the trees larger and taller than where more 
exposed to the fires. 

Just below the confluence of the streams, there was 
a fine waterfall, dashing over a bed of rocks and form¬ 
ing the site of an excellent waterpower, which has 
since been improved by erecting the saw and flouring 
mills of Unionville. 

Having thus introduced the reader to the locality of 
the discussions narrated in the following pages, we 
will now return to John Lovell and his wife, as they 
stood, gazing upon the beautiful panorama spread out 
before them. 

Starting from her reverie, she looked up into her 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


29 


husband’s laughing eyes, and with a pleasant smile, 
said: “Dear John, pardon my brief apostrophe to the 
flowers; I had forgotten myself and the question you 
propounded. Everything looks so strange; and yet I 
think it is beautiful — one grand rolling meadow, as 
far as the eye can reach,- with not a stick or a stone to 
impede the plough. I suppose the strangeness will 
wear away; but I hope the beauty will remain.” 

“ These barren hills will not always be so devoid ol 
timber as you see them now,” he replied. “ In a few 
years I hope to have the spot on which we stand cov¬ 
ered with an orchard of fruit trees, of various kinds, 
and which will serve a three-fold purpose — break the 
force of the winds, draw down showers from the 
clouds, and yield an ample supply of choice fruit — for 
the report is that Kansas is ahead of all other sections 
of our country in this respect. These highlands are 
better for fruit than the valleys, because less subject 
to extremes of heat and cold, and so to early and late 
frosts.” 

“IIow do you account for that fact?” said Mrs. 
Lovell, “ since the higher one goes from the earth the 
colder it grows? ” 

He replied: “ In this case we have opposing facts, 
for such they are, whether we can reconcile them or 
not. Nature is full of apparent contradictions; at 
least to the uninformed mind. But in this case the 
reason is this: The air is much more dense on the low 
than on the high grounds, and the more dense the at- 
mosphere the greater its power of receiving and im¬ 
parting either cold or heat. Thus it comes to pass 
that the thermometer falls lower on the low grounds in 


30 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SIIEPHEKD. 


winter, and rises higher in the summer. In regard to 
other apparent contradictions in nature, there are, no 
doubt, scientific reasons for them; and when we come 
to occupy a higher standpoint of knowledge these 
apparent contradictions will cease.” 

“ Are there not, also, seeming contradictions in the 
moral world?” inquired Mrs. Lovell. 

“ No doubt of it,” he replied. “ Ignorance of the 
fundamental principles of religious truth is the cause 
of the antagonisms in beliefs which have divided the 
Christian world in the past, but as the ages roll on, a 
higher standard of intelligence will be reached by the 
Christian masses. Scientific truth will also cast its 
light upon questions now partially shrouded in dark¬ 
ness, as it has already done in the past. The result 
will be, that the great truths of the Bible will be bet¬ 
ter understood; divisions will be healed, unity re¬ 
stored, and the Savior’s prayer for the oneness of his 
people fully answered, and sect divisions, with their 
names, will be no more.” 

“ I really hope your fondest anticipations will be 
realized, and the vision of beauty that charms you be 
more than a dream,” replied his wife. 

He continued: “ As I just now said, the dis¬ 
coveries of science are dissipating many erroneous 
opinions entertained by good men in the past. Sub¬ 
jects that, fifty years ago, gave rise to heated con¬ 
troversies, in which the most intelligent men of 
the time took opposite views, are now seen from a 
point which shows that both parties were right in 
some things and wrong in others. Such questions 
are no longer in the field of controversy. Thus the 


ONE FOIJD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


31 


age of sectarian debate and party animosities is pass¬ 
ing away. Christian men are beginning to understand 
each other better, and imaginary differences are fading 
aw ay, just as the shadows of the mountains vanish as 
the sun rises to its noontide splendor.” 

“ I think,” she replied, “ that a much greater work 
of unifying the opinions of the different denomina¬ 
tions must yet take place, before a true, visible unity 
shall bless the world.” 

“ I am deeply impressed with the truth of your re¬ 
mark,” he answered. “But it is an encouraging fact 
of this age, that the current of thought in the Chris¬ 
tian world is running strongly in that direction. The 
evils of division are now seen and deplored, as never 
before, by the most thoughtful and spiritual of the 
different denominations; and the basis of visible 
church unity is sought for. This movement, as I 
think, is to gather strength from year to year, till 
divisions will cease, by the union of all the disciples of 
Christ, in each locality, as the church of that place.” 

John Lovell and his wife had each been favored, from 
childhood, with the best of Christian culture. Com¬ 
ing from a Pilgrim and a Puritan ancestry, they had 
imbibed the principles of civil and religious liberty. 
These principles had been silently wrought into the 
very fibers of their intellectual and moral being, and 
gave direction to their activities in social life. 

Broad Christian culture lays the foundation for true 
Christian charity. With them sect or party was of 
little consequence, in comparison with the graces of 
Christian character. While they had their own views 
of doctrinal truth and church polity, they loved all 


32 


ONE FOLD ANI) ONE SHEPHERD. 


who love the Lord Jesus Christ, and were as ready to 
grant to others the free enjoyment of their religious 
convictions as the} 7- were to claim it for themselves. 
Thus, they were willing to co-operate with all Chris¬ 
tians, on the basis of gospel liberty, in sustaining 
Christian institutions. 

Returning to their cottage, they were soon engaged 
in unpacking trunks and boxes, containing clothing 
and furniture. The day was thus spent in arranging 
their household goods, putting up a shelf here and 
driving a nail there, till evening found them with 
everything in order — the looking glass over the 
dresser; photographs of parents, brothers, sisters and 
esteemed friends adorning the spaces between the 
windows, which were hung with snowy white curtains. 
Thus, when the shades of night closed around them, 
they were as cozy and happy as two pure minded, lov¬ 
ing souls well could be. 

Before retiring for the night, Mr. Lovell took 
from the dresser the family Bible, presented by his 
parents, and after reading the twenty-third psalm — 
“ The Lord is my Shepherd,”—they knelt in devout 
and grateful worship, pouring out their full souls in 
thanksgiving to the Heavenly Father, who had guided 
them to their new home, and imploring his protection, 
guidance and blessing. 

Thus, in the very outset of their domestic life, the 
family altar was erected as an abiding institution of 
their household. How unlike too many professing 
Christians, who, on emigrating to a new place, leave 
religious and Christian duties behind them; giving 
themselves over to worldly mindedness, and acting as 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


33 


if God was not in all their thoughts. These are the 
souls who draw back to perdition. Although depend¬ 
ents on Him for life and health, and for those con¬ 
ditions of rain and sunshine by which the earth yields 
them her increase, they yet act as if they thought he 
had nothing to do with their temporal prosperity. 

Mr. and Mrs. Lovell had been steady attendants 
upon the ministrations of the House of God, and 
active workers in the Sabbath School. Hence, in re¬ 
moving to their new home in Kansas, the question of 
church privileges naturally arose. So, after their 
evening worship, Mrs. Lovell inquired the distance to 
the nearest place of worship. 

Mr. Lovell replied: “ It is several miles, quite too 
far for a Sabbath day’s journey, so I know of no bet¬ 
ter plan than to establish a religious meeting in this 
neighborhood. Esquire Benson and his wife are 
professing Christians. So, also, are Mr. and Mrs. Wy¬ 
man, who live just above them, on the creek, and I 
presume others will be found ready to co-operate in 
such an effort. I will visit as many of our neighbors 
as I can, to-morrow, talk over the subject with them, 
and ascertain what can be done in the way of organiz¬ 
ing a neighborhood prayer and conference meeting. 
If successful in this, we may hope to secure preach¬ 
ing, and, after a while, the organization of a church. 
Esquire Benson’s house is the largest and most central 
in the settlement. If he and his wife are not willing 
to open their house for meetings, we will offer ours, 
small as it is, and invite the neighborhood to attend 
next Sabbath morning.” 

3 


34 : 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


As the result of Mr. Lovell’s visits, several families 
were found ready to co-operate in sustaining religous 
meetings, as Mr. Lovell proposed. Mr. and Mrs. 
Benson readily consented to open their house for the 
meetings, till a more convenient place could be pro¬ 
vided. So, on the following Sabbath, the first prayer 
and conference meeting was held, as narrated in the 
next chapter. 


CHAPTER II. 


Sweet Charity — child of the skies — 

Comes down to dwell on earth with men; 

Her lessons make us truly wise, 

And light shines where her feet have been. 

p^>_ 

t T was a beautiful sunny April morning, and the 
winds, at times so annoying, were hushed to a 
gentle breeze. The feelings of those assembling 
for worship were in harmony with the calm of the day. 

To earnest Christians, who have been long deprived 
of the ministrations of the House of God, such a gath¬ 
ering is one of more than ordinary interest. They 
are to form new religious associations, hence anticipa¬ 
tion is on tip-toe over the result. 

What will these new acquaintances prove to be? 
Will they be narrow and sect-bound; or broad, liberal 
and catholic? 

No inquiry had been made respecting the denomin¬ 
ational proclivities of the different worshipers, nor was 
this important. They were assembling as Christians, 
animated by the same hope, under the leadership of 
the one divine master. 

Having come from different localities in the States 
further east, there were scarcely two hymn books alike. 
But, upon examination, a large number of hymns were 
found to be the same in each book. The first lines in 
these hymns were written out for the use of the one 
leading their meetings. 


(35) 


36 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEFHERD. 


By common consent, Mr. Lovell was chosen to this 
responsible duty. It was a position he had often oc¬ 
cupied during and subsequent to his college course. 
He began the service by giving out the hymn: “ I 
Love thy Kingdom, Lord.” 

After singing, by invitation, Esquire Benson led in 
prayer. Mr. Lovell then read the XVII. Chapter of 
the Gospel by John, memorable as the Savior’s last 
prayer with and for His disciples. He then addressed 
the meeting, as follows: 

“ My dear Christian friends: As pioneers in this 
part of the State, we have come, as I trust, not only 
to furnish ourselves homes, and redeem this beautiful 
prairie to the uses of civilized life, but also to lay the 
foundations of Christian institutions, which shall give 
character to the coming ages, and convey the blessings 
of civil and religious liberty to children, and their 
posterity, for ages to come. Christianity is the chief 
corner stone of our civilization and liberties. It is 
this that gives value to all else in this life. Hot only 
our well-being on earth, but our hopes of heaven, are 
locked up in it. In promoting its prosperity, we shall 
be blessed; in its decline we shall suffer the curse 
which neglected duty and betrayed trusts always bring. 

“ We have come from different sections of a com¬ 
mon country, and hitherto have been strangers to each 
other. But our meeting together to-day reveals the 
fact, as I think, that Christ and his love is an attract¬ 
ing and uniting force. We are his disciples. He is our 
only Master, and we are brethern. The tie that now 
unites us, and which I trust will more fully bind us 
in the future, is Christian love. Let its links grow 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


37 


bright, and our fellowship more and more endearing. 
Let us strengthen each other’s hearts, by our prayers, 
sympathy and Christian communings. Let us be 
helpers of each other’s joys, and sharers in each 
other’s sorrows.” 

This brief address was followed by several prayers, 
interspersed with singing and brief narratives of Chris- 
tian experience. During these exercises all hearts 
sweetly ran together in sympathy, each feeling that it 
was good to be there. 

The meeting closed with the hymn: “‘Blest be the 
tie that binds.” 

During the ensuing summer and fall the meetings 
were kept up, each succeeding one only serving to 
cement more closely the bands of Christian brother¬ 
hood. 

In the course of the summer several families were 
added to the settlement, and the number of children had 
so increased that it was found needful to take the legal 
steps to build a school house. This house was built 
in time for a winter school, and Mrs. Lovell was 
employed as its first teacher. 

Hither the meetings were also transferred, and were 
kept up with unabated interest. Occasionally they 
had a sermon, from ministers, of different denomina¬ 
tions, who found their way to the neighborhood. 
Some of these tried to organize societies of their own 
sect, but there were too few of any one denomination 
to make the effort successful. 

There was also an aversion to dividing the religious 
interests of the place, for the people were enjoying a 
delightful unity among themselves. They were already 


38 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


a band of brothers — a Christian society in fact, 
though not in form. What, then, could they gain by 
division ? Why not always maintain their present unity ? 
In that there was strength, in division weakness. Two 
things, only, were needed — a mutual covenant, and 
the stated ministry of the word. These would come 
in due time. 

The question of organizing a Sabbath School was 
discussed in one of their meetings, and the import¬ 
ance of it was admitted by all. It was, therefore, 
resolved to organize one in the spring. With this in 
view, Mr. Lovell wrote to the Secretary of the Ameri¬ 
can Sunday School Union, for such books and papers 
as were desirable, which were promptly forwarded. 

So, early in April, the school was organized. Mr. 
Lovell was chosen superintendent; Mrs. Lovell, secre¬ 
tary and librarian; Mr. Benson teacher of the Bible 
Class, while Mr. and Mrs. Lyman, and Mr. and Mrs. 
Ennis, also took classes. 

Thus organized, the school continued to grow in 
interest and numbers, through the summer, accessions 
being made to it by families moving into the neigh¬ 
borhood. Hor did the autumn or winter witness any 
sensible falling off in the attendance. At one time 
Mr. Ennis suggested that it was about time to close 
the school for the winter. 

“ Why should we close? ” said Mr. Lovell. 

“ Oh,” said Mr. Ennis, “ it is getting to be cold, 
bad weather, and it is hard for children to come out. 
Where I lived, in Indiana, the schools were closed in 
the fall and opened again in the spring.” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEED. 


39 


“ At wliat time of the year do we have the largest 
attendance in our week-day schools?” said Mr. Lovell. 

“ In the winter,” replied Mr. Ennis. 

1“ Yery true,” rejoined Mr. Lovell; “ if the children 
can get to the district school in the winter, pray what 
is to hinder their presence in the Sabbath school? ” 

Mr. Ennis made no reply, and there the matter 
ended; and the school has been kept up, summer and 
winter, ever since. 

It is only when teachers lose interest in their classes 
that children drop off, and schools run down. Let 
teachers be faithful, and schools will never decline. 

In the autumn of the second year, the neighborhood 
was visited by Eev. Joshua Coleman, from Massachu¬ 
setts, who came in search of a suitable location for a 
colony. lie was invited to preach, both morning and 
evening, on the ensuing Sabbath. He did so, and the 
people w T ere pleased and edified by his discourses. 
We give a brief synopsis of his morning discourse. 

The text was Col. i: 18: “And he is the head of 
the body, the Church.” 

In unfolding the doctrine of this passage, Mr. Cole¬ 
man said: “ The Church is spoken of here as a unit. It 
is not churches , but church. It is one, just as the 
human body is one, though composed of many mem¬ 
bers, each sustaining special relations to the others, as 
the Apostle informs us, in 1 Cor. xii : 27, ‘ How ye 
are the body of Christ, and members in particular.’ 
This, in the Apostles Creed, is named ‘The Holy 
Catholic Church,’ or the general church, embracing 
all true believers, in every land and in every age, and 
none others. 


40 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ Into this church every real disciple of Christ is 
inducted, not by vote of the other members, nor by the 
formula of water baptism, but by the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost, as Paul informs us, in 1 Cor. xii : 13, 
‘ For by one spirit are ye all baptised into one body, 
whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond 
or free.’ 

ct This 6 renewing of the Holy Ghost 5 is, therefore, 
the real spiritual baptism, to which John referred 
when he said: ‘ He shall baptise you with the Holy 
Ghost, and with fire.’ It is a ‘ baptism ,’ because it 
brings the soul into a new and changed relation 
to Christ, in which its powers are brought under the 
control and life-giving influence of the baptizing 
spirit. It changes the attitude of the soul from a 
condition of sin to that of holiness. In the meta¬ 
phorical language of Rom. vi : 4, it buries the old 
man, with its deeds, and raises the soul up into a new 
life of love and holy obedience. It is, therefore a 
‘ baptism into Christ ,’ and so into His body — the 
Church. 

“ If, now, we go back to Apostolic times, we shall find 
that however scattered into groups or bands, in differ¬ 
ent places or distant countries, the disciples regarded 
themselves as belonging to the c one body. 1 The tie 
that united them was not any form of speculative 
belief, or set of dogmas, as a confession of faith, but 
the mystic tie of love, ‘ the love of Christ shed abroad 
in their hearts. 5 

“ This love, as a great motive power, wrought in them 
all that was noble, upright and self-denying—all the 
sympathies and wonderfully sweet graces of Christ. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


41 


It made tliem partakers of the divine nature. This 
was a new spiritual creation, and all that were 4 bap¬ 
tised into Christ’ were new creatures. 

44 The division of the 4 one body ’ into sects and 
denominations, was unknown to the Apostles. Noth¬ 
ing of the kind existed in their day. The idea of 
divisions, in the sense of parties, in the Church, was 
repulsive to them. When parties arose in the Church 
at Corinth, though it did not result in the formation 
of rival churches, yet as working in that direction, 
how sternly does Paul rebuke them. Thus, when, in 
their private debates, one said, 4 1 am of Paul,’ and 
another, ‘I am of Cephas,’ just as people now say, 

4 1 am a Methodist,’ 4 I am a Baptist,’ 4 1 am a Pres¬ 
byterian,’ and so on, through the entire catalogue of 
sects, he inquires: 4 Is Christ divided? Was Paul 
crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of 
Paul?’ He charges them with being carnal. For 
while one saith, 4 1 am of Paul,’ and another, 4 1 am 
of Apollos,’ are ye not carnal? 

44 In the same strain, let me say that Presbyterianism 
is not Christianity; nor is Methodism, nor Episcopal- 
ism, nor Congregationalism. These are only so many 
forms of machinery for promoting Christianity; and 
like everything else of human origin, may do good or 
work evil, according to the use made of them. They 
have all been the means of doing much good, and 
either from radical defects in themselves, or from the 
abuse of them, have been the occasion of evil. 

44 The practical deduction I make from the text is, 
that all the Christians in the same place, be it city, 
village or country, should form but one church , and 


42 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


have one or more pastors, or overseers —‘ ejoiscopos 
commonly called ‘ bishops ’— and but one place of 
meeting, except in the large cities, where church edi¬ 
fices should he so located as to meet the necessities of 
the worshipers. 

“ Denominational names, I think, are a liinderance to 
real Christian unity, and should, therefore, be avoided, 
as far and as fast as possible. I argue this from two 
considerations: 

“ First, to escape denominational rivalry and sectarian 
jealousies, which so break up the feeling of Christian 
fellowship, and hinder hearty co-oporation in Christian 
work. 

“ In the second place, I argue it for economic reasons. 
Look at the spectacle, so common in all parts of our 
country, of from four to ten churches on the same 
field, where there is only room for one , or at the most, 
two , each bearing some sect name, and employing the 
labors of as many different pastors, when one or two 
could do the work, even better than four or eight; 
each church imposing on itself burdens too great to 
be borne. And for what? For the sake of some 
unimportant theoretic distinction, party shibboleth or 
denominational name; in this struggle for such sect 
ascendency, each trying to out do the others in the 
splendor of its church edifice. As a result of such 
effort, the society often involves itself in a burden of 
debt, under which it staggers for years, only to fail at 
last. Where these heavy church debts are avoided, 
the people are, in most cases obliged to build cheap 
and uninviting houses. One-half the money expended 
on these different sect houses would build one good 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


43 


church edifice, sufficient to hold them all, and yet 
leave ample room for special occasions, and for future 
growth. 

“Nor is this all. By uniting all in one unsectarian 
church, they would, in many cases, quadruple their 
financial ability. This would enable them to secure a 
higher grade of ministerial talent, and yet have a large 
surplus to devote to the various benevolent causes, so 
much needing aid. 

“ In view of such facts, is it wise, is it economical, is 
it Christian, to waste wealth and ministerial time and 
talent, simply to promote denominational pride and 
vanity? I raise the question, Does the Master 
approve of this waste? I think not, and I protest, in 
the name of our common Christianity. In this strife 
for denominational influence and ascendency, under 
the plea of zeal for the truth, which each sect professes 
to hold and advocate, there is a fearful waste of the 
Lord’s money, while the cause which we as Christians 
labor to promote is really hindered. 

“A second thought, drawn from the text, is this: 
Christ, as the head of his own body — the Church — 
is its only lawgiver and ruler. He is king of Zion, 
and declares himself to be the only Master of his 
Spiritual household, ‘ for One is your Master, even 
Christ, and all ye are brethren.’ In any fair exegesis 
of this charge of the Great Teacher, v T e are to under¬ 
stand that He forbids all mastership and authority of 
one disciple over another, in religious matters. Bind¬ 
ing each one to himself in the closest possible tie of 
love and sympathy, as the only master, he liberates 
from all authority and control, except his own. He 


44 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


alone receives members into his own spiritual body, 
by the renewing power of the Holy Spirit. Hence it 
is the duty of the local church to extend fellowship to 
all who give evidence that Christ has received them, 
and with no conditions that he does not impose in 
receiving them.” 

In closing Mr. Coleman said: 

“ Dear Brethern: It is doubtless the wish of each of 
you to promote the cause of true religion among you 
in the wisest and most economical way. Allow me, 
then, to make a few suggestions as aiding to that end. 

“ You came here from different sections of our 
country, and hitherto have been connected with differ¬ 
ent denominations. There may, therefore, be shades 
of difference in your religious opinions, upon minor 
matters; and perhaps each, either consciously or 
unconsciously, may entertain some prejudice against 
other churches than your own. Let me assure you 
that there is not half the difference in religious opin¬ 
ion between the different churches that many suppose. 
There is really as many shades of opinion between the 
members of the same church as there is between the 
churches themselves. The real diversities of opinion, 
are light and unimportant; the imaginary ones are 
often like mountains. Let me assure you that in the 
sweet interchange of thought and sympathy, these 
mountains will remove and be cast into the sea of 
forgetfulness. 

“ How fervently did Jesus pray for all his disciples, 
‘ that they all may be one] one in Christian love, one 
in worship, and one in labor for the salvation of lost 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


45 


men. Tliis implies a visible and tangible unity 
which, must exclude all sect divisions. 

“ Christian brethern of Unionville, let me urge you 
to maintain the union which has so blest you since 
your settlement on this beautiful prairie. In that 
union there will be strength, and the favor of the 
Prince of Peace will rest upon you. Let your union 
and communion be such that the unconverted around 
you will be led to exclaim: 4 See how these Christians 
love one another.’ The proper manifestation of that 
love will lead them to the Savior.” 

At the conclusion of this discourse, Mr. Benson 
offered the two following resolutions: 

First. That we will maintain our present union, 
and work together in sustaining religious services. 

Second. That a committe of six be appointed, to 
take into consideration the advisability of organizing 
a Church of Christ, and also to report a common basis 
of unity, if such be attainable. 

These resolutions were unanimously adopted, Mr. 
Coleman, by request, putting the motion. 

Under the second resolution, Ira Benson, John 
Lovell, Thomas Lyman, Benjamin Lee, William Ennis 
and Ilenry Wyman, were chosen said committee. 

As chairman of the committee, Mr. Benson proposed 
a meeting the next evening, to consider and act on the 
questions submitted to them, which met the apnroval 
of the brethern. 

As Mr. Coleman was to be in the neighborhood 
several days, he was invited to attend the sessions of 
the committee, as an honorary member. 

That the reader may better understand the task they 


46 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


had before them, it will be proper to state the religious 
proclivities of each. Mr. Benson was a Presbyterian, 
John Lovell a Congregationalist, Mr. Lyman a Meth¬ 
odist, Mr. Lee a Free-will Baptist, Mr. Ennis a regu¬ 
lar Baptist, and Mr. Wyman an Episcopalian. 

Could men of such varied proclivities harmonize 
and crystalize into one local church? Would Christian 
love triumph over the prepossessions ot party? How 
they succeeded will be narrated in the succeeding 
chapters. 


CHAPTER III. 


O, spirit of unity, spirit of love, 

The twin of humility, meekness and peace; 

Thy work will a fountain of blessedness prove, 

Running down through the ages, it never will cease. 

THE DELIBERATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE. 

I N meeting, the next evening, the committee felt 
that they were not to act for themselves alone, nor 
for the welfare of the present. They were to lay 
foundations which were to affect the well-being of 
their posterity. This made it vitally important that 
they should receive the illuminating and guiding 
Spirit of God. This each member of the committee 
felt. It is a fact which cannot be too deeply pondered 
that truth is never seen in its true light, except under 
the inspiration of divine love. The practical expres¬ 
sion of this love is charity. Sectarianism has no 
Christianity in it. Its bond is attachment to party 
and name. Nothing, therefore, but a broad intelli¬ 
gence, sanctified by true Christian love, can break 
down the partition walls and bring all the members 
of the household of faith into sweet fraternal bonds. 

Esquire Benson called the meeting to order, and 
invited Rev. Mr. Coleman to read the Scriptures and 
lead in prayer. He, therefore, read the CXXXIII. 
Psalm: “ How good and how pleasant it is for 
brethren to dwell together in unity,” and then led in 
a most earnest and feeling prayer for the presence and 
"( 47 ) ' 


48 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SI1EPHEED. 


influence of the Holy Spirit, to gutde in all the delib¬ 
erations of the committee. 

The first question to be decided was, What kind of 
a church shall we form, if, after deliberation, it shall 
be thought best to organize one; and by what name 
shall it be called? 

In speaking to this question, Esquire Benson said: 
“ I have always been connected with the Presbyterians, 
and would prefer a church of that order; but I cannot 
expect my brethren to come wholly to me. There¬ 
fore I am willing to meet them on some basis that 
shall be agreeable to all, without the sacrifice of any 
fundamental truth. All subordinate views I am will¬ 
ing to hold in abeyance, to the higher ends of church 
unity. My main desire is that it shall be thoroughly 
evangelical.” 

Mr. Lovell said: “ I care nothing about a name. I 
am in favor of having it organized on the model of 
the Apostolic churches, as near as we can ascertain 
that fact. If the church is to have a name, I know of 
none better than ‘ The Church of Christ ,’ and then 
I want it to be free from any denomininational bias. 
At the same time, I would wish to be in fraternal 
relations with Christians of all denominations * 
though not in the sense of endorsing their distinctive 

* Rev. Dr. Eustis, of the Memorial Church, Springfield, says: 
“ When this Church became undenominational, it did not become 
unevangelical; and in declaring that it will seek the relations of 
Christian fellowship with other evangelical churches, did not 
propose covertly to deny the faith once delivered to the saints, or 
to indorse in its pulpit, or in any pulpit, one who disregards the 
great doctrines of salvation, held by universal Christendom, with 
a few insignificant exceptions.” 




Fig. 1. — Baptizat. 



This is an ornament on the door of the Great Church at Pisa. 
From the shape of the characters it must be of very ancient 
workmanship. The motto upon it is “ Baptizat.” Obviously 
it was made for some Christian establishment. According to 
the tradition current among the Pisans, it was brought from 
Jerusalem by the Crusaders about the commencment of the 
twelfth century. (See Chapters IX and X.) 


( 








































































































































* 























































• • 

. * 




























































ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


49 


ideas. I do not love men as Methodists, or Baptists, 
or as Presbyterians, or Congrcgationalists; blit as 
being Christians, and members of the true Catholic 
Church — the spiritual body of Christ. Nor do I 
wish to be in any such eccleciastical relations to any 
denomination as shall give them any control over us, 
beyond fraternal advice.” 

Mr. Lyman said: “ Though reared a Methodist, yet 
I can find no fault with the ideas suggested by Brother 
Lovell; but I do want it to be a live, warm-hearted 
church.” 

Messrs. Lee and Ennis signified their approval of 
the suggestions of Mr. Lovell. 

Mr. Wyman remarked: “ Though I was trained in 
the Episcopal Church, I am low church in my views 
and feelings. I admire the ritual of that church, but 
do not deem it essential to profitable worship. Indeed, 
I have sometimes thought it a hindrance rather than 
a help to worship. Since I have been in the habit of 
joining with you in the prayer and conference meet¬ 
ings, I think I have received as much spiritual quick¬ 
ening as I ever did in the Episcopal service. Since, 
therefore, we must make mutual concessions, I know 
of no better platform than the one proposed by Brother 
Lovell.” 

The committee having thus individually approved 
of Mr. Lovell’s suggestion, Mr. Lee offered the follow¬ 
ing resolution, viz.: 

“We recommend that the church shall be called 
The Church of Christ in TJnionville.” 

Mr. Lovell then spoke as follows: “ I see no other 
platform upon which we can unite. Let us pattern 
4 


50 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


after the Apostolic Churches, as near as we can. I 
think we shall be safe in adopting the polity they did.” 

From this proposition there being no dissent, the 
resolution was unanimously adopted. 

The next question was, What were the constitution, 
polity, and doctrinal basis of the Apostolic Churches? 

Rev. Mr. Coleman was invited to give his views on 
the subject. In responding he said: 

“ Mr. Moderator and Brethren of the Committee: 
From a careful and somewhat extended inquiry in 
regard to the question before you, as we find it in the 
New Testament and Ecclesiastical History, I have 
reached the conclusion, in my own mind, that those 
early churches w T ere very simple in their polity. They 
do not seem to have had any formulated constitutional 
basis, nor any written article of faith, except what is 
found in the Gospels and Epistles, and briefly alluded 
to in the Acts of the Apostles. In fact, with the 
presence of the Apostles themselves, they did not 
need any. It was some time after the Apostolic age 
that the first statement of doctrinal truth was formu¬ 
lated in what is called the Apostles' Creeds although 
there is no proof that the Apostles had anything to 
do in making it. It is a brief statement of the sur¬ 
face truths of the Hew Testament, as understood in 
the time when it was written, and is useful as a his¬ 
torical record of that fact. How, since we have the 
doctrinal belief of the Apostles, in the Epistles which 
they sent to the churches, it follows that, so far as any 
formulated creed agrees with their teachings, it is well. 

“Those early churches seem to have been drawn 
together on the single consideration of personal faith 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


51 


in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Eedeemer and Savior 
of lost men. Professed converts were admitted to the 
fellowship of the disciples upon the verbal confession 
of their faith, with a pledge, or covenant, to obey him 
and walk in purity and brotherly love. 

“ All the disciples, in any given place, were thus asso¬ 
ciated as a church; all meeting in one place, w T ith one 
accord, for divine worship. Each local assembly thus 
gathered was entirely independent of all others, so 
far as government was concerned; and yet, all churches, 
so formed, were in the most enduring fraternal rela¬ 
tions to each other. They seem to have taken the 
deepest interest in each other’s welfare; giving coun¬ 
sel when needed; sympathizing with each other in 
their persecutions, and aiding each other in their 
poverty and distress. 

“ I will call your attention to a few plain facts in the 
New Testament record, touching the polity and 
government of the Apostolic Churches. 

“ First . We get no glimpse of a national or provin¬ 
cial church.* It is not the church, but the ‘ Churches 

* Certain advocates of a centralized church polity have 
attempted to prove the existence of a provincial church, by rais¬ 
ing an issue as to the correct rendition of Acts ix : 31, claiming 
that exxXrjaiat should have been rendered church, instead of 
“ Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee 
and Samaria.” Without raising an issue as to the correct render¬ 
ing of that word, it is evident, from the use made of it in regard 
to the churches of Macedonia and Asia, that the Church, as the 
one body of Christ, is intended. The expression, the “ Churches 
of Macedonia,” and “ The Seven Churches of Asia,” are proof 
that the modern idea of a provincial church had not entered the 
minds of the Apostles. If, therefore, the church , instead of 
churches, is the correct reading, nothing more is intended by it 


52 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


of Macedonia ’ that sent salutations to the brethren 
of other places. It was not the church, but the 
‘ Seven Churches of Asia,’ to whom the writer of the 
Apocalypse directed his wonder-vision, on the isle of 
Patmos. On the other hand, they are spoken of as 
churches, in reference to the city or place where they 
were gathered — ‘The Church at Jerusalem,’ ‘The 
Church at Ephesus,’ ‘ The Church at Corinth,’ ‘ The 
Church at Antioch,’ etc. To these facts of the New 
Testament record, I will now append the statements 
of ecclesiastical history. Mosheim, in Chapter II. ot 
the First Century, Section 14, says: 

“ ‘ The churches, in those early times, were entirely 
independent, none of them being subject to any for¬ 
eign jurisdiction, but each governed by its own rulers 
and its own laws. For, though the churches founded 
by the Apostles had this particular difference shown 
them — that they were consulted in difficult and 
doubtful cases—yet they had no judicial authority; 
no sort of supremacy over the others, ncr the least 
right to enact laws for them. Nothing, on the con¬ 
trary, is more evident than the perfect equality that 
reigned among the primative churches; nor does there 
even appear, in this first century, the smallest trace of 
that association of provincial churches, from which 
councils and metropolitans derive their origin. It was 
only in the second century that the custom of holding 
councils commenced, in Greece, whence it soon spread 
through the other provinces.’ 

“Thus we see, by the authority of Mosheim, who 
was a Lutheran, that the modern idea of a national, or 

than the catholic, or general church. There is nothing in the 
New Testament, or in the history of those early churches, to sus¬ 
tain the idea of a centralized church government. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


53 


provincial church, with a centralized government, 
had no existence in the first century. 

“Another point that should be well considered is, the 
question of the internal government of the individual 
churches. As a summary of the teachings of the New 
Testament, let me quote again the statements of 
Mosheim, Chapter II., Section 5. lie says: ‘ If it be true 
that the Apostles acted by divine inspiration, and in 
conformity with the commands of their blessed Master 
(and this no Christian can call in question), it follows 
that the form of government which the primative 
churches borrowed from that of Jerusalem, the first 
Christian assembly, established by the Apostles them¬ 
selves, must be esteemed as of divine institution.’ He 
further says: 4 In those early times, every Christian 
church consisted of the people, their leaders, and the 
ministers and deacons; and these, indeed, belong essen¬ 
tially to every religious society. The people were 
undoubtedly the first in authority, for the Apostles 
showed, by their own example, that nothing of 
moment was to be carried on, or determined without 
the consent of the assembly.’ 

“ In Section 6 he further says: 4 It was, therefore, 
the assembly of the people, which chose rulers and 
teachers, or received them by a free and authoritative 
consent, when recommended by others. The same 
people rejected or confirmed, by their suffrages, the 
laws that were proposed by their rulers to the assem¬ 
bly; excommunicated profligate and unworthy mem¬ 
bers of the church; restored the penitent to their for¬ 
feited privileges; passed judgment upon the different 
subjects of controversy and dissension that arose in 


54 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


their community, and decided the disputes which hap¬ 
pened between the elders and deacons; and, in a word, 
exercised all that authority which belongs to such as 
are invested with sovereign power.’ ” 

“ Well! well,” said Mr. Lyman, after listening with 
marked interest to these statements and quotations 
from Mosheim, “it is pretty clear that the early 
churches were nothing more than separate democra¬ 
cies, in religious matters.” 

Mr. Coleman continued: “ Please now to mark how T 
strictly these statements of the historian agree with 
the instructions given by the Master, in the eighteenth 
chapter of Matthew, in reference to offences, where, 
after private reproof fails, he says: ‘Tell it to the 
Church (the assembly of believers, not to the episcopos , 
the overseer — not to the elders), ‘and if he neglect 
to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen 
man and a publican.’ That is, regard him as an 
unconverted man, and disown him as a brother. 

“ Here the Church itself was to act, and its decision 
was to be final. By this very specific instruction of 
the Master, all church authority is lodged in the body 
of believers, composing the local church. It is in this 
way that the Master guards against that element in fallen 
human nature which loves and seeks to grasp power. 
That element is the root from w T hich popery sprang. 
As Luther says: ‘Every man has a little pope in 
himself, that wishes to govern others.’ We see this 
tendency in the case of the two sons of Zebedee. In 
that lesson Christ taught his disciples, and teaches us, 
that power in church matters, even in the hands of a 
good man, is a dangerous thing; dangerous to the 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


55 


unity and peace of the church, and also to the man 
who exercises it. When Jesus said: ‘Be not ye 
called Master’—that is, do not allow yourselves to 
be invested with church power — he seeks to save the 
man from the corrupting influence it will have on his 
own spiritual life. Ambition for power is unfavorable 
to the development of the highest type of Christian 
character.' To admit that element into the polity of 
the church, is to bring in the seeds of discord. To the 
influence of this element in church matters, is to be 
traced all the divisions which have cursed the Chris¬ 
tian world. 

“ The proposition of the mother of Zebedee’s children, 
caused a degree of indignation among the other dis¬ 
ciples, which would have brought about an open rup¬ 
ture, had not the Master checked it by assuring them 
that all such ambition was inadmissable in his 
kingdom. 

“ If we crave distinction as Christians (which is 
unlawful when it springs from a subtle selfishness), it 
can be attained only by patient, self-denying service 
for the good of others. All lawful ambition must 
have its root in love; such love as Christ had for a 
lost world. ‘He that will be greatest shall be servant 
of all.’ 

“ In reviewing this testimony, I am forced to the 
conclusion that all forms of church government, by 
which courts of judicature are established, having 
authority to control the local church, override its 
action and revise its decisions, is a palpable violation 
of the command of our Lord; for such courts do 


56 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


become masters over the individual and the local 
church.” 

At this point the moderator inquired: 

“ How do you reconcile these statements with Heb. 
xiii: IT, 4 Obey them that have the rule over you,’ 
and also with the statement, in 1 Tim. v : IT, 4 Let 
the elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double 
honor’?” 

Mr. Coleman replied: 44 There are two kinds of rul¬ 
ing: One by authority , such as Christ told his disci¬ 
ples that the princes of the Gentiles exercised upon 
them, and which he forbids. The other ruling is by 
example and influence — that is, by the power of a 
godly life — a moral ruling. The question, then, is: 
to which of these kinds of ruling does the Apostle 
refer? Let us see. The passage quoted first reads, in 
full, as follows: 4 Obey them that have the rule over 
you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your 
souls, as they that must give an account, that they may 
do it with joy and not with grief, for that is unprofitable 
for you.’ There is nothing here but a moral ruling; 
such a ruling as any minister would exert by counsel¬ 
ing, advising and admonishing, as the spiritual needs 
of his parishioners might require. 

44 The passage from 1 Tim. v : 18, reads as follows: 
4 Let the elders that rule well be accounted worthy of 
double honor, especially they who labor in word and 
doctrine; for the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muz¬ 
zle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer 
is worthy of his reward.’ 

44 The ruling referred to in this passage is, exercis¬ 
ing a fatherly oversight over the church, and implies 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


57 


ability and fidelity in pastoral work, in preaching the 
gospel, and in urging those under his pastoral care to 
lead holy and blameless lives. The ‘ double honor ’ 
was to show appreciation of their faithful labors, by 
promptly meeting their temporal wants, in order to 
relieve them of care, and to enable them to give them¬ 
selves wholly to the work of the ministry. 

“ All this, as you see, is a moral ruling, in which 
papistic authority is studiously excluded. 

“ In the New Testament, the names, ‘ elder ’ and 
‘ bishop ’ apply to the same person. The term elder 
refers more particularly to the work of preaching the 
word, while that of ‘ bishops ’— episcopos, from ‘ epij 
over, and ‘ scoposf to see, or inspect; from slceptiomai , 
watcher—denoted his work as an elder, of oversee¬ 
ing, and taking charge of the spiritual interests ot 
the church. The words, bishop and pastor, are syn¬ 
onymous terms. The bishop, or elder, took charge 
of, and conducted divine worship; visited the sick, 
and administered to them the consolations of religion; 
counseled, warned and admonished the wayward, and 
acted as moderator in church meetings. Paul gives 
us a graphic description of the qualifications of a 
bishop, in 1 Tim. iii : 1-7: ‘A bishop, then, must be 
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of 
good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not 
given to much wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy 
lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one 
that ruleth well his own house, having his children in 
subjection, with all gravity; for, if a man know not 
how to rule his own house, how shall he take care ot 
the Church of God?’ 


58 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ We see, then, that it was the work of a bishop to 
take care of the church. He was to rule, not by 
authority, like the rulers of the Gentiles, but by the 
force of a godly life, and the gravity and weight of 
personal character. 

“ The obedience to be rendered was, to heed his 
godly admonitions and follow his wholesome example. 
Peter,, though an Apostle, styled himself an ( elder.’ 

“ Thus, I find nothing in the Hew Testament, nor 
in the history of the early churches, to warrant the 
distinction between 'preaching and ruling elders. The 
same person was both a preaching and a ruling elder.” 

These statements of historic fact were new to the 
moderator, and had a deep significance to the members 
of the committee. 

Mr. Wyman remarked: “ I had always supposed 
there was a difference between an elder and a bishop; 
that is, that they were different orders in the ministry, 
the elders having charge of one church, and the 
bishops having the oversight of a number ot churches, 
and their pastors.” 

Mr. Coleman replied: “ Let me give you the state¬ 
ment of Mosheim, on that point. He says, in Chapter 
II., Section 7: 

“ ‘ The rulers of the church were called either pres¬ 
byters or bishops, titles which, in the Hew Testament, 
are undoubtedly applied to the same order of men. 
These were persons of eminent gravity, and such as 
had distinguished themselves by their superior sancity 
and merit.’ 

“ In Section 12, of the same chapter, he says: 4 A 
bishop, during the first and second century, was a 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


59 


person who had the care of one Christian assembly, 
which at that time was, generally speaking, small 
enough to be contained in a private house. In this 
assembly he acted not so much with the authority ot a 
master, as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful 
servant.’ ” 

These were facts quite new to Mr. Wyman, but 
accepting them as the verdict of history, a query came 
up in his mind, to which he gave expression: “ If 
such was the primitive order, how came diocesan 
episcopacy to gain a controlling place in the churches? ” 

Mr. Coleman replied: “ I will quote what Mosheim 
says on that subject, also, and his testimony has the 
more weight from the fact that he was a member ot 
the Lutheran Church, whose government is a modified 
episcopacy. In Section 13 of the II. Chapter, he says: 
‘The power and jurisdiction of the bishops were not 
long confined to these narrow limits, but were soon 
extended by the following means: The bishops who 
lived in the cities, had, either by their own ministry, 
or that of their presbyters, * erected new churches in 
the neighboring towns or villages. These churches 
continued under the inspection and ministry of the 
bishops, by whose labors and counsels they had been 
engaged to embrace the gospel, grew imperceptibly 
into ecclesiastical provinces, which the Greeks after- 

* There seems to have been a plurality of elders, or presbyters^ 
in the early churches, any one of whom was eligible to the pas¬ 
torate of the church, by the election of the brotherhood. All 
these, except the pastor, or bishop, pursued some secular calling, - 
for a livelihood, doing evangelical, or missionary, w T ork in the 
neighboring villages, very much like the local preachers of the 
Methodist Churches, in our days. 


60 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEFHEED. 


wards called dioceses. Bat, as the bishop of the city 
could not extend his labors and inspection to all these 
churches, in the country and in the villages, he appointed 
certain suffragans, or deputies, to govern; and instruct 
these new societies, and they were distinguished by 
the title of i charepiscopi^ i. e ., ‘country bishops.’ 
This order held the middle rank between bishops and 
presbyters.’ ” 

“And that is the way that the democracy of the 
early churches was preverted into an aristocracy, and 
finally into a hierarchy, the most absolute and soul- 
crushing, that ever cursed the world,” said Mr. 
Lyman. 

“ Yes,” resumed Mr. Coleman, “ it w T as by these and 
the following steps, that the shameful condition of the 
Bom an Hierarchy was reached: 

“ First, the simple, unadorned worship of the early 
churches, gradually gave place to a ritualism, showy 
and attractive. This was brought about under the 
plea that the people, who had been accustomed to a 
sensuous worship in the temples of Idolatry, were 
repelled by this simplicity and plainness, but would 
be attracted by a worship that would symbolize to the 
senses the mysteries of Christianity. 

“ The result was, that w T ith an ignorant and super¬ 
stitious people, the form superseded the spirit; and, 
speculations and dogmas soon usurped the place of 
saving faith. With the decline of spiritual religion, 
the innate selfishness and popery of the heart was not 
long in taking advantage of the general ignorance 
and superstition of the people, and usurped a control 
over them. In the absence of the higher law of love, 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


01 


such control seemed justified, as a means of restrain¬ 
ing the outward forms of vice, through the element of 
superstitious fear. 

“ We can also see how that which was at first 
accorded to the metropolitan and city pastors, of yield¬ 
ing to their counsel, in deference to their larger 
experience and greater knowledge, was subsequently 
demanded as a right; on the ground of precedence and 
expediency. 

“Another step in the process by which anti-christ 
came to power, was this: As the civil government 
was an absolute monarchy, with the emperor as 
supreme, and the provinces, with their governors, as 
subordinate departments of the State, all held together 
by one supreme authority, so it was argued, that the 
visible unity of the church must be maintained in the 
same way. The city bishops were governing the 
country pastors as their suffragans; why should not 
the bishop residing in the imperial city be bishop of 
all the bishops in church, as the emperor was king of 
all the kings and governors in the empire? This 
argument from analogy prevailed, and the primacy of 
St. Peter was set up. The result we all know.” 

“ Yes,” said Mr. Wyman, “ and knowing, we should 
guard the future, least that which has happened once 
should take place again.” 

“ Suppose,” continued Mr. Coleman, “ the entire 
church should again come under some form of episco¬ 
pacy, such as that of the Church of England, or of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, what guarantee have 
we that the same hierarchal despotism would not roll 
us back into the dark ages again?” 


62 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“As to that,” rejoined Mr. Wyman, “I think there 
is no danger. Our Christian civilization has reached 
a point that will forever preclude the possibility of 
such a thing.” 

“ Then it is because the higher intelligence of our 
civilization will reject the claims of episcopacy, in 
favor of the simple democracy of the Apostolic 
churches,” answered Mr. Lee. 

“ No doubt the church will, in the future receive 
warning and instruction from the history of the past,” 
said Mr. Coleman. “ We have but to maintain the 
broad unsectarian independence which enlightened 
Christian love inspires, and all will be well. Formal¬ 
ism and sectarianism cannot live in the flame of 
Christian love. We have but to keep the fire burn¬ 
ing, and all dissensions and party feeling will die.” 

While the moderator had listened with evident sat¬ 
isfaction to these discussions upon the rise of prelacy 
and diocesan episcopacy, a question arose in his mind, 
which he did not know how to dispose of, so he said: 

“ Was there not something in the Apostolic churches 
answering to a modern presbytery?’' 

“How could there be, if, as Mosheim says: ‘For 
the first hundred and fifty years, the churches were 
entirely independent of each other.’ If, during all 
that time, ‘there was no trace of any association, 
further than the bond of fellowship and brotherly 
love,’ ” answered Mr. Coleman. 

“ What, then, do you understand to be Paul’s mean¬ 
ing when he speaks of the ‘ laying on the hands of 
the presbytery?”’ Esquire Benson inquired. 

Mr. Coleman answered: “The elders of each locai 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


63 


church were its presbytery. "When, by the election of 
the united brotherhood, any of their number was to 
be set apart to some special work, as that of a deacon, 
or an evangelist, or as a fellow presbyter, the other 
presbyters, or elders, by the imposition of hands and 
prayer, ordained him to his work. This was the ‘ lay¬ 
ing on of the hands of the presbytery.’ ” 

This statement at once set Mr. Benson’s mind at 
rest on that question, and the other members of the 
committee seemed equally satisfied, for it at once 
harmonized the facts with the entire independence of 
the primative churches, as to self government. 

Mr. Coleman continued: “ The idea of a modern 
presbtery, composed of the pastors and elders of sev¬ 
eral local churches, assuming ecclesiastical and appel¬ 
late jurisdiction over the churches composing it, never 
entered the minds of the Apostles.” 

Mr. Wyman remarked that in the Episcopal Church 
deacons were considered as a subordinate class of 
ministers. 

“That is true,” Mr. Coleman replied, “and our 
Methodist brethern have copied the practice from the 
Episcopal Church. But, from the evident design of the 
original appointment of deacons in the Church at Jeru¬ 
salem, it is evident that their work was to look after the 
temporalities of the church, and not to preach. The 
record is: ‘ And in those days, when the number of 
the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring 
of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their 
widows were neglected in the daily ministration (dis¬ 
tribution of alms). Then the twelve called the multi¬ 
tude of the disciples unto them, and said: ‘ It is not 


64 


ONE FOT D AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


reason that we should leave the word of God, and 
serve tables. Wherefore, brethern, look ye out among 
you seven men of .honest report, full of the Holy 
Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this 
business. 5 J Their office, then, w r as to see to the proper 
distribution of the alms of the church to the poor.” 

“ But, it seems that two of the men appointed were 
preachers, for Stephen and Philip, according to the 
record, preached.” 

“ Yes, as laymen,” said Mr. Coleman, “just as Mr. 
Moody, and Major Whittle, and others are doing in 
our days. The Apostles were not the only ones who 
preached. Large numbers of the lay members of the 
church were scattered abroad, upon the persecution 
that arose when Stephen was stoned to death, and they 
c went everywhere preaching the word.’ ” 

“ The explanations you have given are new to me, 
and I suppose to the other members of the committee, 
but they seem reasonable. I have never troubled 
myself to look into this subject before. The order 
and government of the church to which I have been 
a member has seemed to work well, and so I have been 
satisfied.” 

“ Is it your opinion that any special mode of church 
order and government are laid down in the New Tesa- 
ment?” inquired Mr. Lyman. 

“No,” said Mr. Coleman, “ I only contend that the 
fundamental principles of a true and safe church 
polity is laid down for our guidance. Any order or 
arrangement conforming essentially to those prin¬ 
ciples will be good, when rightly used.” 

“ But on this principle of independence, what is to 


ONE FOIJD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


G5 


be done with a church which allows its members to 
walk disorderly, unreproved? Is there any way it can 
be reached by discipline? 55 

Mr. Coleman replied: “ There is. In case a church 
should become lax in disclipline, allowing its members 
to indulge in immoral and scandalous practices, the 
facts coming to the knowledge of any of the neighbor¬ 
ing churches, it would be their duty to appoint a com¬ 
mittee to visit and labor with it. In case of failure, 
it would be the duty of the church so laboring to 
bring the matter to the attention of some one or two 
of the other churches, whose duty it would be to unite 
in sending a joint committee for a further labor. 
Should this second committee prove unsuccessful, it 
would be the duty of all the churches in fellowship 
with it to withdraw that fellowship, and regard it as 
no longer a Church of Christ.’ 5 

“ But, in a case of discipline in a local church, 
where the member feels that he has- been wrongly 
dealt with, what remedy has he, if the vote of the 
church is final? 55 inquired Mr. Benson. 

“ In that case, 55 said Mr. Coleman, “let him ask the 
church to unite with him in calling a mutual council, 
from neighboring churches, for their fraternal advice 
in the matter. The facts laid before such a counsel 
will enable it to render a fair opinion of the merits of 
the case, and to advise accordingly, which advice both 
parties will be likely to follow. 55 

“ But in case the church does not follow its advice, 55 
said Mr. Benson, still pursuing the apparent difficulties 
in such cases. 

5 


66 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“What would you think should he done?” said Mr. 
Coleman. 

“ It seems to me that if the council believe the 
church to have dealt wrongly by him, or that illegal 
steps have been taken, they should have power to 
reverse the decision of the church, and restore him his 
rights.” 

“ In that case the council would become master to 
that church, and set at nought the command of Christ: 
‘Be not ye masters of men,’ ‘Be not ye called master.’ 
There will also be another difficulty. The church, 
believing him to be guilty of the sin for which its fel¬ 
lowship had been withdrawn, could not fellowship 
him. By thus forcing him back upon them, the council 
would only complicate the matter, and make it worse.” 

“ Is there, then, no remedy? ” said Esquire Benson, 
with a troubled look, “ and must an innocent man be 
kept out of the church? ” 

“There is,” Mr. Coleman replied, “and the only 
one of .any practical value in such cases. In the first 
place, if the accused and disowned man is really inno¬ 
cent, he would not wish to wa’k with a church which 
refused to do him justice. He would also wish to 
unite with one of the churches whose delegation in 
the council had adjudged him innocent. In such case, 
a written statement, under the hands of the moderator 
and scribe, that the council believed him to be worthy 
of Christian fellowship, would be a letter of commen¬ 
dation to any of the churches with which he might 
wish to unite.” 

“But it might be very inconvenient for him to 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 67 

travel a long distance to enjoy cliurcli privileges,” 
interposed Esquire Benson. 

“ Yery true,” Mr. Coleman replied, ‘‘but it would 
be the best that could be done in the premises.” 

“ There is yet another difficulty, in my mind,” said 
Mr. Benson; “suppose the church should refuse to 
unite with him in calling a mutual council, what 
then? ” 

“ Then let him call an ex parte council, before whom 
the same facts should be spread as in the case of a 
mutual council. Their decision will exonorate him, 
and their commendation will be a letter to any of the 
other churches.” 

“But after all,” Mr. Coleman continued, “such 
cases are hypothetical, and seldom or never occur. A 
man who lives as a Christian should, will have no 
trouble with his brethern, for ‘ when a man’s ways 
please the Lord, he maketh his enemies to be at peace 
with him.’ The point I reach is this: All coercing by 
church authority is ‘of the earth, earthy.’ We should 
recognize no authority but Christ, and no coercing 
power but truth and love.” 

At the conclusion of these inquiries and answers, a 
vote of thanks to Mr. Coleman, for his very interest¬ 
ing statements, was passed, and the committee took a 
recess of fifteen minutes. 


CHAPTER IY. 


Oh! Glorious Faith, that dares to do 
What conscience whispers is the right; 

Which trusts the Lord to bring us through, 

To crown our work with victory too; 

And in our darkness gives us light. 

t T the expiration of the recess, the Moderator 
said, “Before we proceed further, I wish to 
say that the statements of Mr. Coleman are 
so self-evident, and in such harmony with the Scrip¬ 
tures, that they have removed all doubts in my mind, 
as to the platform upon which we must build, if we 
build at all. I have always supposed, ’till now, that 
such a government as he has sketched would be too 
weak for good order and discipline. But since it is 
evident that the Apostolic Churches were self-govern¬ 
ing, and independent of ecclesiastical control, except 
to Christ; if they could be successful with the crude 
material brought to their hands, I think that with our 
greater general intelligence, and higher social order, 
we shall have no difficulty in governing ourselves.” 
Then after a moment’s pause he said, “ I think I see 
a difficulty in the way of forming an undenomina¬ 
tional church. In that case, where can we get aid in 
the support of a pastor till we become strong enough 
to be self-sustaining?” 

It was a question which had been overlooked, and 
for a moment was a damper on their plan. Mr. Lovell 
broke the spell by asking: 

' (68) 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


69 


“What did the Apostolic Churches do in such 
cases? They had no Missionary Boards to aid them. 
If they could sustain the ministry of the word with¬ 
out foreign help, I think we can.” 

“I presume we can, after a sort,” Mr. Benson 
replied. “ But the usages of society are very different 
with us. Their modes of life, compared with ours, 
were simple and inexpensive. It costs a family four 
times as much with us, as it did with them.” 

“And they were more liberal according to their 
means,” rejoined Mr. Lovell. “ I think if we give 
the same per centage of our incomes that they did, we 
can support a pastor without much foreign aid.” 

“ What per centage of our annual income do you 
think we ought to give?” said Mr. Ennis. 

“That depends largely on circumstances,” Mr. 
Lovell replied. “There are some in the older and 
stronger churches, who could give three-fourths of 
their annual income, and not feel it; others could give 
half, some a third, some a fourth, some a tenth, and 
others very little, if anything. I think that an 
equalized rule of giving, in all ordinary cases, would 
be one-tenth.” 

“But in case of the loss of our crops, by drought 
or locusts, what then?” inquired Mr. Lee. 

“ The Bible is full of promises to those who trust 
and obey God,” Mr. Lovell responded. 

“ ‘ Honor the Lord with thy substance, and with the 
first fruits of thine increase, so shall thy barns be 
filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst forth 
with new wine.’ ‘ Bring ye all the tithes into the 
store house, that there may be meat in mine house. 


70 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


And prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, 
if I will not open the windows of Heaven, and pour 
you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough 
to receive it. And I will rebuke the destroyer for 
your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your 
ground.’ 

“With these promises, will it do to trust Him in 
going forward in our duty?” 

“ Of course it will,” Esquire Benson replied. “ I am 
willing to do all I am able in the support of the Gos¬ 
pel, but I really think that if we were each to give a 
tenth of our income this year, it would not amount to 
over $300.00, and that would not be enough to supply 
the table of a minister, much more to meet his other 
expenses. And so the question returns again: What 
Missionary Board will aid us unless we come under 
the control of the churches it represents?” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “Ido not think it necessary 
to put ourselves into bondage to any sect, to secure 
the aid we may need in the support of a pastor. I 
know of one Missionary Society that will not demand 
it. If the church we propose to organize is evangeli¬ 
cal, and stands on the basis of the Apostolic Churches, 
and is willing to co-operate with the churches which 
contribute to its funds; seeking fellowship and frater¬ 
nal intercourse w T ith them, the fact that we are sell- 
governing and unsectarian, will be no bar to our 
receiving the needed assistance. The American Home 
Missionary Society will notask us to take a sect name 
as a condition of granting aid.” 

Mr. Coleman confirmed these statements of Mr. 
Lovell, saying: “The churches that work through 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


71 


that Society, are themselves self-governing and un- 
sectarian. And should they lay aside their peculiar 
name, and call themselves simply Churches of Christ, 
they would still be substantially the same in polity 
they now are. The fact that you take simply the 
name of * The Church of Christ in Union ville,’ will 
be no bar to your receiving aid while you maintain 
your unsectarian self-governing polity.” 

“ But will it not be necessary for us to have some 
connection with the Congregational Churches of the 
State?” inquired the moderator. 

Mr. Coleman answered: “Nothing beyond the 
fellowship that should subsist between you and all 
other churches — a visible and recognized fellowship 
— for counsel and co-operation in Christian work. 
Nothing that will bring you into bondage to any sect, 
or that will require you to pronounce any Shibboleth.” 

“ I think we shall desire fellowship and co-operation 
in our Church work, with all the Evangelical Churches 
of the State, on the broad platform of our common 
Christianity,” said Mr. Lovell. “ If the denomina¬ 
tional churches will not co-operate with us, without 
our assuming their church name, and placing ourselves 
under their ecclesiastical control, that will be their 
fault, not ours, and we can only leave them to answer 
to the Master for such refusal.” 

Then turning to Esquire Benson, Mr. Lovell in¬ 
quired, “ Will our Presbyterian brethren enter into an 
organized fellowship with us on the plan proposed?” 

“Notunless we join the Presbytery, and conform to 
the Presbyterian standards,” he replied. 

“Will the Baptist churches admit us to fellowship, 


72 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


unless we adopt tlieir peculiar views and practices ?” 
said Mr. Lovell, addressing Mr. Ennis. 

“ I tliink not,” he replied. 

“Will the Freewill Baptists do so?” 

“ I think there would be less difficulty with them 
than with the other churches named; but they would 
insist on the practice of immersion, and the rejection 
of infant baptism,” Mr. Lee responded. 

“ Would the Methodists enter into organized fellow¬ 
ship with us on the plan proposed ? ” 

Mr. Lyman replied, “ The Methodists are very 
liberal in their feelings toward the members of other 
churches, and are ready to work with them in prayer- 
meetings and general revival work; but in organized 
fellowship for counsel and Christian labor, I think 
they would not, unless we become Methodists.” 

“Well, Brother Wyman, what about the Episcopal 
Church?” 

“ There is no use to look in that direction,” he re¬ 
plied, with a smile. “We should have to turn Epis¬ 
copalians to find fellowship and co-operation with 
them.” ^ 

“ And now, Brother Lovell, it is your turn,” said the 
Moderator. “You have been catechising us, so now 
tell us, Would the Congregationalists enter into an 
organized fellowship with us, on the basis we pro¬ 
pose? ” 

“Brother Coleman has answered that question, 
already,” said Mr. Lovell. “ I will simply confirm 
liis statements. As an unsectarian, self-governing 
church, we shall need only to seek the fellowship of 
their churches, to find them ready to extend it, and to 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


T3 


enter into formal co-operation with us in all Christian 
work.” 

“ Will not such fellowship and co-operation make 
us a sect? ” inquired the Moderator. 

“Would such a union of the Apostolic Churches 
have made them a sect?” 

“Well, really, I suppose not,” he replied. 

Mr. Lovell then remarked, “ For a Church to de¬ 
mand, as a condition of membership, anything except 
that upon which Christ receives and pardons a peni¬ 
tent believing sinner, thus rejecting whom Christ 
receives, does by such act make itself sectarian in 
spirit; and churches uniting on such a basis as ex¬ 
cludes from their fellowship any of the Disciples of 
Christ, do become sectarian. Those Churches which, 
by adopting as a basis of union a centralized 
government, that assumes a mastership over the local 
churches composing it, do, by such a union, become a 
sect, as well as a denomination. 

“ Let us, then, lay this down as a fundamental princi¬ 
ple of truth, that any local Church which receives all 
whom Christ receives, without becoming a master 
over their moral convictions, is an unsectarian church; 
and any number of Churches uniting on the simple 
ground of Christian Fellowship, to aid and encourage 
each other in Christian work, are still unsectarian. 
They may even assume a denominational name, as 
expressive of their unsectarian character, and yet not 
be a sect.” 

The Moderator listened to this explanation of Mr. 
Lovell’s with seeming interest, but still a shade of 
doubt hung over his mind. Nor is it to be wondered 


74 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


at. The sectarian feeling of the past, the result of 
ignorance, leading the minds of professed Christians 
into false, and half conceived views of truth; has 
driven them into separate communions, and cultivated 
the idea so common, that there is no difference between 
sect and denomination. 

This was the thought that troubled Esquire Benson’s 
mind, and to which he gave utterance: 

“But after all, will not such fellowship and co-oper¬ 
ation make us a sect, so long as there are those who 
are unwilling to co-operate with us?” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “ I will answer that question by 
asking another. You know that the greatest revivals 
of modern times have taken place through a union of 
all the different Churches. In these meetings name 
and sect has been thrown aside, for the time, and all 
hearts have run together in love and sympathy. 

“Did this sympathy and fellowship in labor turn 
them into a new sect?” 

The case was a plain one, and Esquire Benson 
promptly answered, “No.” 

“If it is plain that different churches, working 
together, harmoniously, in revivals, do not destroy 
their individuality, but leaves them in the same inde¬ 
pendent relation to each other, then it is equally plain 
that the fellowship and co-operation in general Chris¬ 
tian work, of a number of churches, scattered through 
the country, does not make them a sect. It does not 
interfere with the government and internal economy 
of the individual churches so associated.” 

With this explanation of Mr. Lovell, Esquire Ben- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 75 

son and the other member of the committee seemed 
satisfied. 

44 I wish,” said Mr. Lovell, “to add just this 
thought: When Christians of different names have 
worked together so sweetly, during a season of revival, 
all hearts running together in love and fellowship, I 
have often raised the inquiry: since, for the time, they 
are acting practically as 4 one church, 5 why do they 
need ever to separate? Why resume sectarian or 
denominational work? Why should they not so work 
in harmony all the year round? And to the thought¬ 
ful mind, the echo is, 4 Why? 5 

44 Whatever excuse there may have been for sects, in 
the past, growing out of ignorance, and its prejudices 
and misconceptions, I think the time has come when 
these childish notions, should be laid aside; and that 
henceforth there should be a wise and continuous 
effort of all Christians, to seek a common basis of vis¬ 
ible union and fellowship. 55 

Mr. Lovell continued: 44 For my part, I should pre¬ 
fer not to bear any denominational name, for such 
names are, in their tendencies, devisive. It is on this 
account that I like the name we have chosen — 4 The 
Church of Christ. 5 This name is Scriptural, and 
hence no Christian can object to it. I also think that 
4 disciple, 5 or 4 Christian, 5 is all the names that indi¬ 
vidual Christians should bear. For a man to say: 4 1 
am a Methodist, 5 or 4 Baptist, 5 or 4 Presbyterian, 5 or 
4 Congregationalist, 5 smacks too strong of party to suit 
me. 55 

Esquire Benson said: 44 Brother Lovell, I fear you 
carry this matter too far? 55 


76 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“Why?” 

“ What harm can there be in a name? ” 

“ There would be none if it did not stand as a sign 
of division. Do away with the divisions, and there 
would be no need for denominational names. While 
my views of church government harmonize with Con¬ 
gregationalism, I do not wish to bear any other name 
than that of Christ. And, now that we have touched 
upon this subject, I will give several reasons for not 
wishing to bear any sectarian or denomininational 
name. 

“ In the first place, no other name would fit me, but 
that of Christian, or disciple of Christ. I am noth¬ 
ing that could be correctly designated by any possible 
sect name. If, therefore, I should take such a name, 
I should be taking a false one, and one which does not 
express my religious life and character. Then again, 
I do not wish a name to declare, or point out, my 
opinions. The most important things, in my estima¬ 
tion, are faith in Christ, love to God, and hope of 
immortality. Opinions are trifles to these. I, there¬ 
fore, want only a name which expresses my faith, my 
hope, my character. ‘ Christian ’ does this, and noth¬ 
ing more, for it signifies nothing as to opinions, or 
ceremonies. It indicates no theory of interpretation, 
or form of church government; It involves no dis¬ 
putes about orders in the ministry, or modes of bap¬ 
tism. It simply means a believer in and a follower of 
Christ. This is what I trust I am, and mean to be 
while I live. 

“Again: my opinions are undergoing more or less 
change, as I see deeper into the things of God. If, 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


77 


therefore, I were to assume a name, as expressive of 
my opinions, I must alter it as my opinions should 
change. But, however these may change, my hope, 
my faith, my love remain the same; so the name, 
‘ Christian ’ suits me to the last. 

“There is yet a consequence of a sect name which 
more fully justifies me in this choice. Should I take 
a name from my opinions, I would thereby identify 
myself with all who hold the same, and so cut myself 
off from all those who do not hold them, when I know 
full well that there thousands of dear brethren in 
Christ, who do not hold them, and with whom it is 
my duty to live in endearing fellowship. For one, I 
do not wish to raise any bars between them and my¬ 
self. If they thus erect bars, and refuse fellowship 
with me, the blame will rest upon them. 

“ There is another consideration, which has weight 
with me, and that is: There are no mere opinions 
which may not be held by bad men, and none that may 
not be rejected by real believers in Christ.* I should, 

* We do not include the vital doctrines of the Cross in the 
term “ opinions There are certain fundamental truths which 
must be accepted by man as a sinner, in order to a true faith in 
Christ, namely: The sovereignty of God, as moral Ruler; the fact 
of personal sin and guilt; the terrible results of sin, without 
Redemption; that Christ is just such a Savior as man needs, and 
that pardon, peace, and holiness, are given through faith in him. 

By the term “opinions” we mean those speculations of theolo¬ 
gians upon matters remotely connected with the Christian life, 
which, whether true or false, do not make or unmake the Chris¬ 
tian — such as election, and reprobation, and perseverence, orders 
in the ministry, Apostolical succession, modes of baptism, and 
the like. In regard to all these, there is an underlying vein of 
truth, and these speculations are the inferences and inductions 


78 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


therefore, not wish to identify myself with bad men, 
nor place bars to true visible fellowship with any who 
are really brethren in Christ. 

“Not only so; but, if I give myself a name derived 
from any particular opinion, and so identify myself' 
with those who hold it, I magnify opinion above the 
Christian life, and the vital doctrines of the cross, and 
in a degree become answerable for all the opinions 
held by such men, and so for their sectarian feelings. 

“But when I simpfy call myself Christian, I am 
answerable for nothing but the truth of Christ’s doc¬ 
trines, and the excellency and divinity of his character 
and mission. 

“Again: If I take no name but that of Christian, 
any other believer may unite with me in fellowship, 
without being answerable for anything about me, 
except my faith in Christ, and my endeavor to under¬ 
stand and do his will; whereas, if I take a name from 
my opinions, I make it impossible for others to unite 
with me, without making themselves answerable for 
all that the name implies. 

“And, finally, all who believe in Christ, and place 
themselves under his government, can submit to be 
called ‘Christians,’ and ‘Churches of Christ,’ and even 
glory in being answerable for all the name implies. 

“ But all believers cannot submit to be called Bap¬ 
tists, or Methodists, or Presbyterians, or Episcopa¬ 
lians. or any other denominational name, because they 

of human reasoning in regard to them. As such, they should be 
remanded to the realm of private opinion, and not thrust upon 
the church as articles of faith, or as tests of discipleship. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


79 


cannot make themselves answerable for that which 
these names imply.” 

Esquire Benson had listened with marked attention 
to Mr. Lovell’s reasons, and they were so self-evident 
that he yielded the entire assent of his mind, and felt 
an inward gratification that the church they were 
about to organize was to be known by the Bible name 
of “ Church of Christ.” Nor were these arguments 
without their effect upon the minds of the other 
members of the committee. 

“ Brother Lovell,” said the Moderator, “ I am satis¬ 
fied that the platform you advocate is the only one 
upon which all Christians can unite, without the sur¬ 
render of that which they, as individuals, regard as 
truth.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “ Yes, the platform we propose 
to adopt leaves each believer entirely untrammelled in 
regard to his own personal opinions. They are his 
own property, with which no one has a right to inter¬ 
fere. He may talk them over with his brother, and 
assign his reasons for holding them, and his brother 
may state his objections, if he has any, and in turn 
may give his reasons for a contrary opinion, but there 
the matter should end. 

“ Where Christian love is the ruling passion of the 
heart, such discussions can take place without any 
partizan heat, and such questions be left to the guid¬ 
ing mind of the Spirit. 

“ Opinions are mere theoretic speculations, at best. 
They neither make nor unmake the Christian. Christ 
in the heart is an all-sufficient creed.” 


80 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPFIERD. 


“ But Paul exhorts believers ‘ to be of one mind, ” 
interposed Mr. Ennis. 

“Very true,” Mr. Lovell replied, “ but what is the 
exact thought the Apostle designed to convey in that 
language? Does he mean that our opinions must be 
stereotyped, and that we must agree in all our specu¬ 
lations? Does he not aim at something more practical? 
However desirable a uniformity of opinions may be 
in matters pertaining to Christian life and unity, yet, 
since men are necessarily limited in the range of their 
knowledge, so they, at best, take only partial and 
imperfect views of the facts upon which the mind 
speculates. 

“ It, therefore, comes to pass that one sees that which 
is hid from the view of another. If, then, we would obey 
the exhortation of the Apostle, to be of one mind, we 
must pass around to the opposite side of the subject, 
and look at it from the standpoint of our brother.” 

“You seem to think our speculations, as you are 
pleased to call them, are of but little consequence,” said 
Mr. Ennis. “ I think they often have an important 
bearing on the duties of the Christian life.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “Every duty really enjoined 
upon us, is plainly and clearly laid down in the Scrip¬ 
tures, and are not matters of speculation. In regard 
to the underlying reasons for any plainly stated duty, 
so far as our general enlightenment may enable us to 
grasp them, it will promote our edification to under¬ 
stand them. Our inferences in regard to questions 
not explicitly stated in the Bible are often at fault, 
through our partial ignorance. Hence, I think it a 
safe rule to adopt, that where our inferences are such 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SIIEPIIEKD. 


81 


as to tend to break np Christian unity, we should 
judge them to be wrong.” 

“ I think your suggestions correct,” said the Moder¬ 
ator, “and hence we may judge of the character ot 
such inferences, and indeed of any speculations, by 
their practical influence upon the lives of those 
entertaining them.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “ Any deductions or inferences 
drawn from the Bible, which leads those making them 
to place bars of separation between Christians, and 
thus hinder visible union, I judge to be misinterpre¬ 
tations of that sacred book.” 

“ Yery true,” responded Esquire Benson, “ but how 
is the present state of things to be remedied? There 
must be as great a change in the thinking of the 
Christian world, as took place under Luther and the 
other reformers of that age, before general visible 
unity can be an accomplished fact.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “This reform can take place 
only in the way that all reforms do, which remove 
abuses, unify and elevate society. 

“ Kind Christian discussion of the evils of division, 
with the underlying principles vital to union, will 
finally succeed. I trust we are giving a practical 
illustration of the manner in which union can take 
place; and I hope our example will be followed in 
many other places, in this and other States. 

“ The hope of the final triumph of this cause lies in 
two facts: 

“ First . The awakened desire for visible unity, 
among the most intelligent and devoted in the several 
denominations. 

6 


82 


•ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“Second . This cause is clearly of God, and must, 
therefore, in the end, prevail. 

“ It may also come sooner than we even dare to 
hope. When great reforms, like large bodies, get 
fairly in motion, they move with resistless power. 
We may not live to see it, but long before our next 
centennial, I think, it will be an accomplished fact. 
It will also be the grandest era in the world’s history, 
because it will be the outcome of all the great moral 
movements of the ages.” 

“ God grant it,” said Mr. Lyman. 

“Already the vision brightens,” continued Mr. 
Lovell, “when Ephraim shall no longer envy Judah, 
nor Judah vex Ephraim, but when they shall unite 
their strength in the conquest of the world for Christ. 
When, by the concentrated forces of all Christ’s disci¬ 
ples, moving upon the Dragon , Idolitry,— the Beast, 
Popery,— and the False Prophet , Mohomedanism, 
these three great forms of anti-christ, then the veil 
which has for ages covered the nations, shall be lifted, 
and the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ shall 
shine everywhere. Then the nations shall be recovered 
from the long night of ignorance and sin, and shall 
exult in the blessedness and peace which attends its 
sway. Love shall take the place of hate, with its man¬ 
ifold ministrations. And then will go up the glad 
shout, ‘ Allelujah /’ for the Lord God omnipotent 
reigneth.” 


CHAPTER Y. 


Our earliest thoughts, or right or wrong, 

Like rocks imbedded long in sand, 

Seem firmly fixed, secure and strong; 

Will every argument withstand. 

Yet truth is but the voice of God, 

And reasons with a force divine; 

Its magic power, like Aaron’s rod, 

Moves obstacles which long withstood 
The progress of the time, the good, 

And makes the path of duty shine. 

S T the close of Mr. Lovell’s argument, the Com¬ 
mittee took a short recess, at the expiration of 
- which the Moderator said: “ Is there any other 
question needing consideration before the Committee 
are ready to agree upon their report? ” 

Mr. Ennis said: “ I think we should have some un¬ 
derstanding about baptism, and matters connected 
with it.” 

The Moderator requested him to state his ideas and 
wishes in regard to the subject. 

In answer, he replied: u Brethren, you all know, 
that in my personal convictions I am a Baptist; and 
while I am very much attached to you all, and can 
cheerfully extend the hand of fellowship to you, I am 
aware that the most of you think baptism by affusion 
the more appropriate mode. I am also aware that you 
believe in and practice infant baptism. How the point 
is this: If I unite in Church Covenant with you, shall 
(83) 


84 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


I not seem to sanction that which I regard as unscrip- 
tural?” 

“Would you sanction our views any more than we 
should yours? ” Mr. Lovell inquired. 

“ I do not know that I would; but then there is this 
difference: You admit that baptism by immersion is 
valid, while I think all other modes are illegal and 
void. You would not, therefore, be sanctioning a 
thing that you thought absolutely wrong but I should, 
in regard to sprinkling or pouring, which I think no 
baptism at all.” 

“ I think you take a false view of your duty in this 
case,” said Mr. Lovell. “ We do not sanction the views 
of others, with which we differ, in such cases. We 
simply remain passive, and let each one answer to the 
Master for opinions that do not affect Christian char¬ 
acter. If Christ accepts and blesses my brother in 
what he regards as his duty, I have no right to reject 
or treat him as an offender.” 

“This question of baptism,” Mr. Lovell continued, 
“ is one upon which good Christians unfortunately 
differ. This difference is not intentional, but grows 
out of our partial ignorance, and mistaken interpreta¬ 
tions of the Bible. 

“ How, as I understand that blessed book, it says 
nothing about mode. It enjoins the duty of baptism, 
but leaves us to infer, from its connection with the 
topic of instruction, whether the baptism so enjoined 
is ritual or spiritual. It is so, also, with regard to the 
mode or manner in which it is to be administered. 
The mode, at best, is but a matter of inference, and 
often two or more different inferences are drawn from 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


85 


the same passage of Scripture, Now, since no one 
can say, 4 I know I am right,’ and since the point 
in debate neither makes nor unmakes the Christian, 
this question of mode should be left wholly as a 
matter of private opinion, for each one to settle for 
himself, in the careful, prayerful study of the word ot 
God; while each should be left free to answer his own 
convictions, according to his understanding of the will 
of the Master.” 

I think it our duty to follow 4 Christ ’ in baptism. 
But we do not, unless we go down into the water, and 
are buried with him in baptism,” rejoined Mr. Ennis. 

“ Where do you find a command to follow Christ in 
baptism?” inquired Mr. Lovell. 

“ Brother Lovell, do you deny that it is our duty to 
follow Christ in that ordinance? For what was he 
baptized, unless it w r as for an example for us to fol¬ 
low?” 

Mr. Lovell answered: “No doubt we should follow 
Christ in all those things in which he became an ex¬ 
ample for us. For instance, He is set before us as a 
model of perfected humanity; so Jhatin studying his 
life and character, we get an exact ideal of what God 
would have us be. Thus he becomes our example in 
the purity and unselfishness of his motives, in selt- 
forgetfulness and devotion to the good of others, in 
his humility and meekness, gentleness and patience, 
and in his unflinching fidelity to truth and righteous¬ 
ness. But to follow Christ in baptism is quite another 
thing. Baptism, as an external ceremony, has no moral 
character, and confers none; and is harmless for good 


86 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


or evil, aside from its symbolical and obligating 
design.” 

“ Was not Christ baptized as an example for us?” 
said Mr. Ennis. 

“ It is nowhere so stated in the New Testament,” 
Mr. Lovell replied. “The duty of baptism does not 
rest upon his example, but upon his command.” 

“ I have always been taught that his baptism was an 
example for us. Did he not say, ‘ Thus it becometh 
us to fulfill all righteousness.’ ” 

“Brother Ennis, I fear you fail to understand the 
design of Christ’s baptism, or the fact to which he 
referred when he used that language.” 

“Well, if you think you understand it, pray do ex¬ 
plain it,” rejoined Mr. Ennis. 

“ Righteousness is conformity to right law. Hence, 
when the Savior used that language, he must have 
referred to some law enjoining baptism. Can you tell 
us where in the Bible that law is recorded?” 

“ Really, Brother Lovell, you have me there. I do 
not remember to have ever seen it in the Old Testa¬ 
ment. I understand baptism to be a duty enjoined in 
the New Testament.” 

“ But when Christ used that language he must have 
referred to some law in the Old Testament Scriptures 
enjoining the duty.” 

“Well, Brother Lovell, can you tell us where that 
law is recorded ? ” 

“I think I canreplied Mr. Lovell. He then 
took the Bible, and turning to Exodus xxix.: 4, 5, 7, 
read as follows: “ And Aaron and his sons thou shalt 
bring into the door of the Tabernacle of the congre- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


8T 


gation , and shalt wash them with water. And thou 
shalt take the garments and put upon Aaron the coat 
and the robe of the epliod , and the ephod and the 
breast plate , and gird him with the curious girdle 
of the ephod. Then shalt thou take the annointing 
oil and pour it upon his head.” 

“ This ceremony,” continued Mr. Lovell, “ was the 
form of consecrating the priests and the High Priest. 
The baptism with water in the door of the Tabernacle, 
with the annointing oil poured upon his head, and his 
investiture with the priestly garments, was the pro¬ 
cess of inducting him into the high priesthood, and 
was typical of Christ, as our great High Priest, who, 
not with the blood of bulls and goats, but with his 
own blood, entered into the holy of holies, as an aton¬ 
ing High Priest, for us. 

u Ho one entered upon the priestly office till thirty 
years of age. Christ was a priest after the order of 
Melchizedek, and at the age of thirty he w’as here set 
apart to that office by his baptism, at the hands of 
John and the annointing of the Holy Ghost. This is 
what he meant when he said ‘ Thus it becometh us to 
fulfill all righteousness.’ 

“ If, now, you are to follow Christ in his baptism, 
you, too, must become a priest,” said Mr. Lovell. 

Hone of the Committee had ever heard this explana¬ 
tion of Christ’s baptism; but it carried conviction of 
its truth to all present. 

Mr. Ennis replied: “ Your explanation is new to me, 
and it looks reasonable; but I think his baptism was 
also an example for us to follow.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “ Though Christ was baptized 


88 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SIIEPITERD. 


by John, yet it was distinct and different from John’s 
baptism in its design. John’s baptism was 4 into 
repentence.’ Christ had no sin to repent of. John’s 
baptism pledged the people to believe on Christ as the 
promised Messiah; but Christ was himself the Mes¬ 
siah. His baptism could not, for that reason, have 
been an example for us to follow, any more than was 
Iiis crucifixion.” 

44 However that may be, I think it right to be bap¬ 
tized in the way he was, and be 4 buried with Christ in 
baptism.’ I believe there is no valid baptism but im¬ 
mersion. I also regard it the door into the Church. 
Moses was commanded to build the Tabernacle after 
the 4 pattern showed him in the mount.’ So I think 
we are not at liberty to depart from the pattern set us 
by the Savior. Now, if baptism is the door into the 
Church, then there can be no valid membership with¬ 
out it. Baptists, therefore, regard other Churches in 
the light of Christian societies, or converts, who have 
not, as yet, joined the Church.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: 44 Christ declares himself to be 
the door. Has the Church two doors? ” 

Mr Ennis replied: 44 1 cannot say as to that; but I 
think immersion is baptism, and we cannot come into 
the Church regularly without it.” 

44 And so your doctrine practically unchurches three- 
fourths of the Christian world, and leaves them in a 
most awkward fix.” 

44 Yes,” said Mr. Coleman, 44 If brother Ennis’ views 
are correct, not being a member of the Church, I am 
no minister, and all my ministrations are unwarranted 
assumptions.” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


89 


Mr. Ennis seemed startled at the logical results ot 

O 

his doctrine, but he felt himself bound to it as by a 
band of steel. His only reply was: 

“ I think the doctrine supported by the teaching of 
the Bible.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “ Where consequences like these 
are the logical results of a doctrine, the doctrine itself 
should be supported by the most positive and explicit 
testimony from the Word.” 

“ I think the proof of immersion clear and positive.” 

“How, Brother Ennis, let us bring this question to 
the test of fact and common sense. Will you tell the 
Committee for what grand purpose the Church was 
organized? ” 

“As to that,” he replied, “ I think one object is, the 
mutual edification of its members, by watchful care over 
each other; and by union in worship, and mutual 
counsel and fellowship. As I understand it, a second 
design is, by united organized effort to carry out the 
command of the Master, to £ Preach the Gospel to 
every creature,’ and thus evangelize the world.” 

“Very true,” said Mr. Lovell, “but now for the 
test. Do not those churches which you call ‘ Societies 9 
promote these ends of Church organization as effectu¬ 
ally as do the Baptist Churches? Are not Methodist 
and Presbyterian Churches doing this very work, and 
as effectually as the Baptists? Then again, are the 
members of Baptist Churches any more benevolent 
or exemplary than others? Are they any more self- 
denying and zealous in preaching the Gospel, at home 
or among the heathen ? 99 

“You certainly have the advantage in that argu- 


90 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


ment,” Mr. Ennis replied. “ For all practical purpo¬ 
ses we can claim no pre-eminence.” 

“Should not that fact lead you to suspect that your 
assumptions are not well grounded?” 

“ I confess that it seems so. But what am I to do 
in regard to what I think the clear teachings of the 
New Testament on this subject?” 

“ Is it not possible that you have misinterpreted the 
Scriptures on this point?” queried Mr. Lovell. 

Mr. Ennis replied: “ I know that others who are as 
well informed as Baptists, think us in error on this 
subject; and it would be both ungracious, as well as 
papistic, for us to claim an infallibility on this ques¬ 
tion. 

“Yes, Brother Lovell, it is quite possible that we 
have misunderstood the teachings of the Word in this 
respect; but still I think not probable.” 

To this admission, Mr. Lovell replied: 

“ Now, Brother Ennis, since this question stands in 
your way, and in the way of visible union wherever it 
exists; will it not be well for us, as Christian breth¬ 
ren, candidly and prayerfully to review the entire 
ground of difference between us? 

“We cannot both be right. I will not say that my 
opinion on this question of baptism is right, and that 
yours are wrong. I will only say that after making it 
a matter of profound study, and careful investigation, 
I fail to find, any evidence to support your views.” 

Mr. Ennis answered: “I cannot object to a candid 
review of the question; for if I am in error, it is 
time I was set right.” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


91 


“ Let ns then ascertain the points at issue,” said 
Mr. Lovell. 

“ First , You think baptism the door into the visible 
Church, and consequently that no one can be a mem¬ 
ber without it? ” 

“Yes,” said Mr. Ennis. 

“ Second , You believe the Lord’s Supper to be an 
ordinance of the local Church, and designed for its 
members only?” 

“ Yes.” 

“ Third , You claim that immersion alone is valid 
baptism? ” 

“Yes.” 

“ Upon these propositions, as upon three pillars, tlfe 
views and practice of the Baptist Churches will stand 
or fall. If these propositions are true, then all Chris¬ 
tians should embrace, and act upon them. If they are 
false, then our Baptist brethren should abandon them, 
as standing in the way of visible unity. 

“ Since this is the only question of difference be¬ 
tween Baptists and other Christians, if it can be 
removed, then union will soon follow. 

“Before we proceed to this investigation, permit 
me to say, that in my view, no one can be a member 
of Christ’s general Church without baptism. All 
who now are, or ever were, in the Church, were bap¬ 
tised into it. But the baptism is spiritual, not ritual, 
and Christ is himself the administrator, through the 
agency of the Holy Spirit; and it is a baptism into 
‘ His Body'the Church] according to the statement 
of Paul, in 1 Cor., xii : 13: ‘For by one Spirit are we 


92 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SUEIMIEND. 


all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
Gentiles; whether we be bond or free.’ 

“ Here is the real baptism into the Church. Now 
what proof can Brother Ennis bring, that water bap¬ 
tism is also a door into the Church? ” 

Mr. Ennis replied: “I do not know that water 
baptism is anywhere declared to be the door, in speci¬ 
fic terms, but I think it is by implication. If, as you 
say, the spiritual baptism unites us to Christ, why 
should not water baptism unite us to the visible 
Church?” 

“ Simply because it is an ordinance of the general 
and not of any local Church. Ritual, or water bap¬ 
tism, initiates into nothing; it is only an outward sign 
of regeneration. It is a recognition of membership 
in the spiritual body of Christ. 

“ All we can do in our local Churches is, to recog¬ 
nize the fact, that from the evidence the candidate 
gives, we think him already a member of Christ’s 
body — the true, holy Catholic, or General Church; 
and upon that evidence we receive him to our commu¬ 
nion, and extend the hand of fellowship to him, as a 
fellow disciple. 

“ I think the design of baptism is greatly misun¬ 
derstood by many good people.” 

“ Will Brother Lovell please give us what lie thinks 
to be the design of baptism?” said Mr. Enms. 

Mr. Lovell replied: c< I think the design of the rite 
to be three-fold: 

“First, It is a visible seal of the covenant into 
which the believer enters, in receiving Christ as his 
personal Savior. 




ON 10 FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


93 


“ Second , It brings tlie one receiving it under the 
controlling power of a covenant of love and obedience 
to Christ; and is a sign of subjection to Him. It is, 
therefore, a public confession of Christ. 

“ Third , It is a beautiful and expressive symbol of 
the true spiritual baptism. That wonderfully myste¬ 
rious work of the Holy Spirit, in which the soul, dead 
in sin, is brought to life and enjoys a spiritual resur¬ 
rection; and by which its life and strength are continu¬ 
ally fed, is set forth, and made comprehensible to the 
Unite mind, in this beautiful and symbolic ordinance. 

“Water is the only element which purifies, and 
gives life. Fire, as an element, destroys and purifies 
from dross, and symbolizes the destruction of sin. 
Water is the essential element in all vegetable and 
animal life. What would this earth be without it. 
FTo flowers exhaling their fragrance; no trees bearing 
their precious fruits; no birds filling the groves with 
their melody; no flocks or herds in the pastures. 

“ Without it the earth would be one vast scene of 
desolation and death. 

“Such would be the condition of the moral and 
spiritual world, without the life-giving, soul-renewing 
powder of the Holy Spirit. He is the fountain and 
source of all that is beautiful and bliss-inspiring in 
earth and Heaven. 

“As water surrounds and percolates the earth, vital¬ 
izing and feeding vegetable and plant life, permeating 
the air we breathe, and giving to it its health-inspir¬ 
ing power; coming down in silent dews, or falling in 
timely showers; so the Holy Spirit surrounds, fills, 


04 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


and permeates the moral world. He is the unseen 
presence, silently developing life in the human soul. 

“It is thus that water, as an unchanging element, 
becomes the symbol of the Holy Spirit in his life- 
inspiring work. 

“ Fourth. The need ot such a symbol will be appa¬ 
rent from a moment’s reflection. The language ot 
words is feeble and insufficient to set forth and describe 
the unseen truths of spiritual religion; and if it were 
adequate for that purpose to-day, it would be an unsafe 
depository of these truths for coming ages, from the 
fact that its terms are constantly undergoing change. 
It was, therefore needful to enshrine the great spiritual 
truths of religion in a language that will not change; 
a language that can be read by either learned or un¬ 
learned, the language of symbols, clear, definite, 
beautiful.” 

“ That makes water baptism an exceedingly beauti¬ 
ful and significant ordinance,” said Mr. Lyman 

A nod of assent passed around the Committee, Mr. 
Ennis nodding as emphatically as any. 

Mr. Benson inquired if Brother Ennis had anything 
further to offer in proof that water baptism is the door 
into the visible Church. 

Mr. Ennis replied: “ In some respects I think there 
is a parallel between circumcision in the old dispensa¬ 
tion and baptism in the new. As that inducted those 
who received it into the Jewish or Abrahamic Church, 
so I understand baptism to be the inducting ordinance 
into the visible Church.” 

“ There, again, I think you misconceive,” said Mr. 
Lovell. “ Circumcision, as I understand it, did not 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


95 


induct either Abraham or his posterity into any visi¬ 
ble Church organization. It was simply a visible seal 
of the covenant already entered into between God and 
Abraham, and an outward sign of the circumcision of 
the heart through faith in the promise. 4 1 will be a 
God unto thee, and thy seed after thee, in their gen¬ 
eration.’ It was a personal, and not a Church ordi¬ 
nance. 

In like manner baptism is not an ordinance of the 
local Church, as such. It does not induct the candi¬ 
date into any Church. It is of broader significance 
than that. It inducts into nothing, but is a sign ot 
the union of the believer with the body of Christ, 
already existing.” - 

To these statements of Mr. Lovell Mr. Ennis made 
no reply. The Moderator therefore said: 

“Has Brother Ennis any proof that baptism must 
necessarily precede the communion of the Lord’s 
Supper? ” 

Mr. Ennis replied: “ There is no specific command 
to that effect; but the argument for it is drawn from 
the parallel between the Paschal Supper and the Lord’s 
Supper. No one could partake of the passover who 
had not been circumcised; so the fair inference is that 
no unbaptized person should be admitted to the com¬ 
munion.” 

“ There is much plausibility in that argument,” said 
Mr. Lovell, “ but to my mind it does not reach the 
merits of the case. The mistake lies in our misunder¬ 
standing of the terms of admission to that ancient 
ordinance. It is not true that all who partook of the 
passover were circumcised in the flesh, for the females 


9G 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


of each household were admitted to the feast. The 
law that prohibited the uncircumcised referred to the 
true circumcision — not the symbol of it. The lan¬ 
guage of Paul, in Pom. ii : 28, 29, throws light upon 
this point. ‘ For he is not a Jew, that is one outwardly, 
neither is that circumcision which is outward in the 
flesh; but he is a Jew that is one inwardly, and circum¬ 
cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 
letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.’ The 
Jewish females partook of it because they, equally with 
the males, could receive this true circumcision. And 
all who partook of it were regarded as thus spiritually 
circumcised. 

“.Now, to carryout this parallelism, all who have 
received the spiritual baptism are entitled to the com¬ 
munion, though not having, as yet, received its sign 
and symbol.” 

“It seems to me that your argument is not conclu¬ 
sive; for if a person may partake of it before receiving 
water baptism, they may neglect it altogether, and still 
be members of the Chuck,” said Mr. Ennis. 

“ Do you think Christ to be a martinet — a meas¬ 
urer of red tape?” Mr. Lovell inquired. 

“ Not exactly that,” Mr. Ennis responded, - £ but, as 
I understand it, every disciple of Christ should receive 
water baptism? ” 

“ In that I agree with you,” said Mr. Lovell. “ Bap¬ 
tism, as a duty, stands upon the platform of all other 
duties, and should have its appropriate place in our 
regards. But where has the master said we shall not 
commemorate his death for us till we have received 
water baptism ? ” 


Fig. 2.— Baptism of Chkist in Jordan. 



This is a picture taken from the door of the Church on the 
Via Ostiensis at Rome. The outside is a plate of brass, covering 
a substance of wood. The figures are partly in relief and partly 
engraved. Some of the hollows are inlaid with silver. The 
inscriptions are in Greek, with the motto BAIITICHC. The door 
which it covers is dated 1070, but the plate is much older than 
the door, and from the letters it is manifestly of Greek origin 
and of very ancient workmanship. (See Chapters IX and X.) 

































. 


■ 





1 .. 

















































. I 9 

* 












■ 





































• 
















• 








• 






• . \ 








•t-* 






























































ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


97 


Mr. Ennis made no reply, so Mr. Lovell continued: 
“This argument is strengthened by the fact that forty 
water baptisms would not fit any one to come to the 
Lord’s Supper who had not been renewed by the Lloly 
Spirit, or who, having once been spiritually baptized, 
was afterward living in the habits of sin. The greater 
always includes the privilege of the less.” 

The facts stated by Mr. Lovell were new to Mr. 
Ennis, and indeed to most of the Committee. Mr. 
Coleman smiled, and said: “This subject is in safe 
hands. Brother Lovell has gone down to the bottom 
of this subject. I think it will be hard to upset his 
argument.” 

“Do not all the denominations make baptism in 
some form a prerequisite of communion?” inquired 
Mr. Ennis. 

“I think not,” Mr. Lovell answered. “Are yon 
not aware that all open communion Baptist Churches 
do not regard it in that light? ” 

“ That is a fact,” Mr. Lee responded, with emphasis; 
who, though a believer in immersion, did not think it 
a Church ordinance, but simply a Christian duty, like 
prayer or alms giving. 

Mr. Lovell resumed: “ I think it a fault of the past, 
that too much stress has been laid upon mere exter 
nals, and that the shadow has taken the place of the 
substance. The all important thing in regard to the 
communion is the real baptism into Christ .” 

The reader will see that Mr. Ennis, though not con¬ 
scious of it himself, was bound up to an external 
ritualism, from which Mr. Lovell was anxious to free 
him. 


7 


98 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEKD. 


“Suppose,” continued Mr. Lovell, “a person has 
just embraced the Savoir, but for some reason is not 
in a condition to receive water baptism. Meanwhile, 
having received the essential baptism of the spirit, and 
being present at a communion season, he desires to 
show his love for the Savior and the brethren by par¬ 
taking of the bread and wine. Would you reject him 
because he had not done a duty that he had no oppor¬ 
tunity of doing but intended to do as soon as he con¬ 
sistently could? ” 

“ I should not like to do so,” Mr. Ennis answered. 

“But would you?” 

“ Well, that is a hard question; but,-well, I. 

would pass the elements to him with the others, and 
let him act upon his own convictions of duty.” 

“ I think that would be leaving it just where the 
Master leaves it,” responded Mr. Lee. “ He throws 
us upon our personal convictions, and permits us to 
act upon the best light we have, taking our intended 
obedience as the measure of our fidelity.” 

“It is well to look at this question from another 
standpoint,” said Mr. Lovell. “ Does not Christ com¬ 
mune, by his spirit, with every converted soul, even 
before they are baptized with water?” 

Mr. Ennis answered in the affirmative. 

“ Then how would it look for us to refuse the fellow¬ 
ship of communion, simply because the convert had 
not yet taken upon himself the external symbol of the 
grace of Christ?” 

Mr. Ennis replied: “ As I said before, I would waive 
my own convictions, and throw the responsibility upon 
him. I would pass the elements to all alike.” 



ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


99 


“ That, I think to be the true course,” Mr. Lovell 
replied, “ with this exception: I would never pass the 
bread and wine to a person whom I know to be an un¬ 
believer— a wicked man. For it would be mockery 
for such an one to partake, even though he had once 
been baptized with ritual baptism; and I would not 
thus sanction his sin.” 

Mr. Ennis replied: “The suggestionof Brother Lov¬ 
ell is very good, and it is true that I am not responsible 
for the religious opinions of my brethren, or their con¬ 
victions of duty. I might, perhaps, go into a Church 
where the majority practiced infant baptism, so long 
as I was left entirely free to carry out my own convic¬ 
tions undisturbed. But how does the matter stand in 
the case of a minister? Suppose, after we are organ¬ 
ized into a Church, we were to call a man to be our 
pastor who had conscientious scruples about baptizing 
infants or administering the ordinance in any way but 
by immersion. Would you require him to act against 
his convictions? ” 

“It is a very serious difficulty, I admit; and yet, 
whose convictions are to be met? Those of the can¬ 
didate, or the administrator? Now, since it is the 
candidate who is to enter into a visible covenant rela¬ 
tion to Christ and his general Church, I think it the 
duty of the minister to waive his own convictions as 
to what he would think it his duty, if he were to be 
baptized, and throw the responsibility upon the can¬ 
didate.” 

“ That seems all very fair in talk, but not so easy in 
practice; for the minister, too, has convictions of duty, 
which in turn should be respected,” said Mr. Ennis. 


100 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


The Moderator then remarked: “ The question re¬ 
duces itself to this: Since these varying convictions 
cannot both be right, the entire question of the mode 
and proper subjects of baptism need to come under 
careful review. All other questions seem to be dis¬ 
posed of. There is truth somewhere. Shall we seek 
it for its own sake, and for the sake of the harmony 
and unity it will bring? ” 

The suggestion met the minds of the Committee. 
They then adjourned till the next evening. Brothers 
Lovell and Ennis to get such aid as they wish. 


CHAPTER VI. 


How shall we ever understand, 

In its true light, our Lord’s command, 

If we should wrangle in debate, 

With party zeal and secret hate? 

How understand each other’s thought, 

Which may with weighty truth be fraught? 

How? unless love shall conquor hate, 

And sit as umpire in debate, 

Shall make us mortals sweetly listen, 

To thoughts which may with wisdom glisten; 

And roll from us dark error’s night, 

And fill our souls with heavenly light. 
o^> 

t T is needful, at this date of our narrative, to inform 
the reader that Esquire Benson, having a good water 
power on his farm, and being several miles from 
any centre of business, had built a dam, and erected a 
saw and flouring mill; laid out a village plat, and had a 
small villiage growing up. Dwelling houses, mechanic 
shops, and a store, were among the improvements of 
the place. 

The name, Unionville, had been adopted as express¬ 
ive of the unity and friendly feeling prevailing among 
the inhabitants of the village and adjacent country. 

It is noteworthy that the inhabitants of a new 
country have more of social and friendly feeling than 
the people of older places. This arises from the fact 
that the people are yet comparatively poor and mutu¬ 
ally dependent. As the country grows older, and 
wealth develops, distinctions arise. Some prosper 
( 101 ) 


102 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEED. 


more than others, build better houses, and drive better 
carriages, and put on more show. These results take 
place either from greater tact at money making, 
greater energy and skill, greater economy in their 
expenditures, or from a better practical judgment in 
the use of what they acquire. 

It, therefore, happens, in the play of social life, 
that jealousies and rivalries arise, which separate 
neighbors and friends. 

The religious character of a place depends largely 
upon the moral character of its leading citizens. New 
society, like young life, is plastic, and easily moulded. 
Hence the importance of following up the newly form¬ 
ing communities in the West with the ministrations of 
the Gospel. The people of a community not thus 
favored, become lax in their moral habits. Sin, 
indulged in, blunts the moral perceptions and deadens 
the moral feelings. The tendency of fallen human 
nature is to barbarism, which nothing but the Gospel, 
as a restraining, educating power, can check. Our 
Christian civilization, with all the worldly prosperity 
it brings, and the social security and domestic comfort 
it imparts, is, therefore, largely dependent upon the 
faithful preaching of the Gospel, and the conserving 
influence of Christian churches. It was, therefore, 
owing to the position taken by John Lovell and Esquire 
Benson that harmony and good feeling so prevailed in 
the place. 

A few miles from Unionvilie lived a Rev. Mr. Ford, 
a Baptist minister. He was reputed to be a man of 
learning and ministerial ability. He had visited 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


103 


Unionville a few times, and preached with great 
acceptance for the people. 

In view of the pending inquiry in regard to bap¬ 
tism, Mr. Ennis invited his assistance. Mr. Lovell 
also invited Mr. Coleman to aid him, though only as a 
referee, for he had made this subject a matter of deep 
research and profound study. 

The subject was one that excited general interest in 
the community, and almost thfe entire population were 
out to listen to the discussion, on the evening appointed. 

Mr. Ford was invited by the moderator to open the 
meeting with reading the Scriptures and prayer, after 
which the subject of inquiry was stated to be, the 
mode and subject of baptism. 

Mr. Lovell arose and said: 

“ Mr. Moderator, Ladies and Gentlemen: Last even¬ 
ing, in our discuision, we settled all the preliminary 
questions relating to our contemplated church organi¬ 
zation, except that of the mode and subject of baptism. 
This, I think, is the only thing that now stands in the 
way of organizing a church that shall embrace all in 
this community, who love our common Lord. 

“ Brother Ennis claims that baptism cannot be val¬ 
idly administered, except by immersion. I fail to find 
any proof of that claim in the Bible, and it becomes 
the duty of Brother Ennis, either himself, or through 
Brother Ford, to furnish the proof of his position.” 

Rev. Mr. Ford was, therefore, invited to state his 
views upon the subject. He arose and said: 

“Mr. Moderator, Members of the Committee, 
Ladies and Gentlemen: In obedience to the request 
just made, I will say: I understand Christian baptism 


10 4c 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEKD. 


to be a solemn act, in which and by which the believer 
enters into covenant with Christ and his church, in 
which he obligates himself to love and obey Him as his 
only Master. I also believe said act to be a total 
immersion of the body in water as the receiving 
element, in which act is represented the burial 
and resurrection of Christ. I further believe that no 
one is entitled to baptism except upon a personal con¬ 
fession of faith in Christ.” 

“And, consequently, you believe baptism in any 
other mode, to be no baptism at all, however sincerely 
it may be understood as such, by both the administra¬ 
tor and the person receiving it,” said Mr. Lovell 

“Yes; that is my position, exactly.” 

“ And you regard ail not thus baptized as outside of 
the visible church?” 

“ Yes.” 

“ Then, it follows that you do not regard any 
churches as valid which practice sprinkling or pouring 
as modes of baptism?” 

“ Certainly.” 

“Considerable high churchism in that!” said Mr. 
Lovell, with a smile. He then continued: 

“ Brother Ford, we may as well come down to the 
Bottom of this subject at once. Do you see the 
attitude your position places you in? You know 
that three-fourths of the evangelical churches of the 
world have no faith in your views as to the mode and 
subjects of baptism; and yet these churches give as 
good evidence of love and obedience to Christ as do 
Baptist churches, and their labors are as much blessed 
in leading souls to Christ. Thus they give the true 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


105 


sign of being in the succession of the Apostolic 
churches. And jet, your position and practice is a 
practical denial of this, and you virtually charge all 
who do not follow your practice with both ignorance 
and disobedience. Thus you assume an infallibility 
of opinion over them, and reprove them for not fol¬ 
lowing your example in this matter.” 

“ I protest, Brother Lovell, I have not a particle ot 
the feeling that you assume we possess.” 

“ It is not your feelings, but the attitude your doc¬ 
trine of immersion and close communion places you, 
in the eyes of the Christian world. I have no doubt 
that really you entertain the kindliest feelings of char¬ 
ity and love for the members of other churches, but, 
as I view it, your position gives the lie to your Chris¬ 
tian feelings, because it denies the hand of Christian 
fellowship to those whom you really fellowship in 
your hearts.” 

“ I think you fail to apprehend our views of fellow¬ 
ship. We make a distinction betwen Christian fel 
lowship and church fellowship. The first we extend to 
all Christians; the latter we restrict to our own mem¬ 
bers,” said Mr. Ford. 

Mr. Lovell could not prevent a smile at the utterance 
of these words. He finally replied: 

“ Really, Brother Ford, I may be dull of apprehen- 
sion, but I cannot see it in that light. What is church 
fellowship but Christian fellowship? Where we have 
the one we must necessarily have the other. I regard 
your distinction as having no foundation in fact.” 

“ You will at least allow us to escape by that ladder 


106 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPriEKD. 


from the predicament you have placed us in,” said Mr. 
Ford, with a smile. 

“ Well, to come to the solid facts of the case,” said 
Mr. Lovell, “ where has the Master said that nothing 
is baptism but immersion? and where has He said 
that none should partake of the communion till they 
are baptized with water? Please quote chapter and 
verse for either.” 

“How, Brother Lovell, you are attempting to put 
me in a tight place. It cannot be done. We do not 
pretend that the Master has enjoined either, in explicit 
terms. We infer it from the nature of the ordinance, 
and the example of Christ and his Apostles.” 

“ Then you have nothing but an inference to sup¬ 
port the practice. How do you know that your infer¬ 
ences are correct? Another man draws a different set 
of inferences from the passages you rely upon. How 
do you know that the inferences others draw are not 
the true ones?” 

“ How, Brother Lovell, do you pretend to say that 
Christ was not baptized by immersion? ” 

“ I pretend to say there is no proof that he was.” 

“Just take the facts of the case: You cannot deny 
that ‘John baptized in Jordan,’ and that he also bap¬ 
tized in Hlnon, near to Salem, because there was much 
water there; and then does not the record say that Jesus, 
when he was baptized, ‘Carrie up, straightway, out of 
the water’? Why should John seek such places if 
it was not for the purpose of immersing those who 
came to his baptism ? If he had only sprinkled water 
on them, he could have done that in the cities and 
villages, as well as in Jordan, and at iEnon.” 


ONE F07-D AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


107 


Mr. Lovell replied: “You have made a pretty 
strong presumptive argument, and I don’t wonder that 
to a great many people it looks conclusive; and yet it 
fails to satisfy me. I do not pretend to say there was 
no immersion in these cases, but there is no real 
proof of the fact. There may have been reasons for 
John’s baptizing in these places, without supposing he 
immersed those who came to him. For instance, it is 
a hot country, and the multitudes that came to listen 
to his preaching would need water for themselves and 
their beasts to drink. He would, therefore, seek such 
places for the accomodation of the multitudes that 
came out to attend his ministry. We have an exam¬ 
ple of this, in the case of our Methodist breth¬ 
ren, when holding a camp-meeting for only a few 
days. They are always careful to select a place 
where ‘there is much water ,’ though, as every one 
knows, it is not for purposes of baptism. I have 
another reason why John came preaching in the 
wilderness of Judea. His father lived in that part of 
the country, and he had been educated in habits of 
domestic simplicity. His clothing was the plainest and 
least expensive possible. This would have excluded 
him from the society of the cities and prevented that 
bold, and free manner of preaching to which he was 
accustomed among the plain country people. Here he 
won a commanding influence, and the fame of his 
preaching drew multitudes from the cities who would 
never have been reached had his ministry commenced 
with them. Here his word took effect; a deep con¬ 
viction of sin led them to ask what they should do. 
He exhorted them to repentance, and by baptism 


108 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHIRD. 


brought them under a solemn pledge to repent and 
receive the Messiah, whom he declared was soon to 
come. These, it appears to me, are the reasons which 
led John to ‘come preaching in the wilderness of 
Judea.’ ” 

These inferences of Mr. Lovell were so reasonable, 
and harmonized so clearly with the historic facts, that 
most of the committee, and indeed the audience gen¬ 
erally showed by their looks of satisfaction that Mr. 
Lovell’s reasons were convincing: 

“ Let the Bible tell its own story,” said Mr. Ford, 
and turning to the third chapter of Matthew, he read: 

“ Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, 
and all the region round about Jordan, and were bap¬ 
tized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” 

Then, turning to the sixteenth verse, he read: 

“ And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up, 
straightway, out of the water.” 

“ Please to note,” said Mr. Ford, “ John did not 
baptize by Jordan, nor with Jordan, but in Jordan. 
I think it evident, therefore, that Jesus was immersed.” 


CHAPTEB VII. 


f OU seem to lay great stress upon the preposition 
in. You say Christ was not baptized by Jordan, 
nor with Jordan, but in Jordan. John says: 
i I indeed baptize you with water.’ With what water f 
Why, with the water of Jordan. Brother Ford, if you 
are a Greek scholar, you know that the Greek particle 
and ‘eic’ * translated in , and into , more frequently 
than otherwise mean at , and to. And you must also 
know that 4 d7ro,’f translated 4 out ofj is commonly 
rendered ‘ from ,’ and this is its natural meaning. 
You know, too, that those passages might have been 
rendered, with equal faithfulness to the original: 

* Liddell and Scott say of “ev. M A being or remaining 
within. 1.—Of place, situated within a given space, as in, on, at. 
2.— On, upon. 4.— On, at, by, as “ & nora/io),” by the river. 

Grove defines it thus: “ev,” and in Poetry “m,” and “«v,” a 
prep, governing the dative case, in, within, inside, among, on, 
upon, against, at, near, during, by way of, with, by means of. 

Of “ eic,” Liddell and Scott say: The radical significance 
is, direction to, motion to, on or into. Of this we have an illustra¬ 
tion in John, xx : 4, 5, 6 — “The other disciple did out run 
Peter, and came first “«c” the sepulchre. Yet went he not in. 
Then cometh Simon Peter, and went “elf” the sepulchre,” etc. 

f Of “ a7ro,” Liddell and Scott say: The original sense is, 
from, whether a place or a time, implying motion, from , away 
from, out from, etc. 

Grove says of “ arro, ” with the genitive, from, off, far, since, 
after, away from, wide of, by. for, by reason of, out of. 

“i/c,” is thus defined by Grove: of, from, out of, from within , 
off, away from, abo.e, beyond, after, since, by, with, at, in, 

(109) 


110 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


4 John was baptising at Jordan ,’ and Christ came up 
*from the water? 

“ There is, therefore, no evidence from the original, 
that John or Christ even dipped their feet in the water 
of Jordan.” 

“But John baptized in HEnon, near to Salem, ‘be¬ 
cause there was much water there.’ Does not that 
look like immersion? Why go where there is much 
water , if he did not immerse his candidate?” 

“ Here again you are laying stress upon a word 
that, as you must know, in the Greek means ‘many,’ 
‘tt oXka] ‘ jrjolla ’ and ‘ many waters ,’ would have 
been as true to the original. In confirmation of this, 
travelers tell us that HCnon is a place abounding in 
springs of water; none of which, at the present day, 
are large enough for purposes of immersion. It is 
therefore evident that nothing can be drawn from these 
passages, which proves immersion. 

“Well, take the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. It 
is said, ‘ And they went down both into the w r ater, 
both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 
And when they were come up out of the water,’ etc. 
Is not this strongly presumptive that Philip immersed 
him?” 

“How, Brother Ford, as a Greek scholar, you must 
know that ‘eZf,’ and ‘e*,’ have a large latitude of 
meaning. Take the word and it means in, into, 
to, unto, until, among, at, before, in presence of, etc. 
So *£/c,’ translated 1 out of] means ‘ of,' ‘from,' from 
within, outside, ‘ away from,’ above, beyond, by, with, 
at, etc. 

“Ho sound or convincing argument can be drawn 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


Ill 


from these words. But even admitting that they 
really went doicn into the water , and came ujp out of 
the water, (for the original will bear that translation), 
neither you, nor any other man living, can tell how 
the baptism was performed while there. I think the 
presumption is that he baptized him by sprinkling.” 

“Why, Brother Lovell, what an idea,” said Mr. 
Ford. “ What possible reason can you have for such 
a supposition?” 

“Well,” said Mr. Lovell, in answer, “let us go to 
the passage in Isaiah from which Philip preached to 
the eunuch. He begins at the 13th verse of Chap¬ 
ter lii., and runs on through Chapter liii. 

“‘Behold my servant shall deal prudently, he shall 
be exalted and be extolled, and be very high. As 
many were astonished at thee; his visage was so 
marred more than any man, and his form more than 
the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations,’ 
etc. Then comes the words that Philip heard the 
eunuch reading: ‘Who hath believed our report,’ etc. 
In preaching Christ from this passage, he must have 
explained to the eunuch that the expression in the 15th 
verse, ‘ So shall he sprinkle many nations ,’ referred 
to his command, as recorded in Matth. xxviii: 19, 
‘ Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost.’ He must have preached the 
duty of baptism from that text in Isaiah, for why 
otherwise would the eunuch say: i See, here is water, 
what doth hinder me to be baptized.’ 

“ The presumption is further strengthened, from 
the fact, that the eunuch would have been in a pretty 


112 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEFHEED. 


plight to have gone along the road with his garments 
dripping with water. For there was no opportunity 
for a change of garments, and we have no right to 
assume that he carried a change with him.” 

Mr. Ennis looked anxiously at Mr. Ford, to see 
what answer he would give. . But while he could bring 
no rebutting proof against this argument, yet the idea 
that the eunuch’s baptism must have been an immer¬ 
sion was so fixed in his mind, that without attempting 
to appeal to the meaning of the word, “ Bajptizo ,” he 
passed on to what he considered positive scriptural 
testimony. 

“The statement of Paul, in Homans, vi : 3, 4, I 
consider proof positive, that the Apostolic practice 
was by immersion, for he says: ‘Therefore, we are 
buried with him by baptism into death; that like as 
Christ was raised up from the dead, so w^e also, should 
walk in newness of life.’ The same Apostle gives 
utterance to the same thought in Col. ii: 12, when he 
says: ‘ buried with Him in baptism.’ ” 

Then, with a look of triumph, he said: “Now, 
Brother Lovell can you, can any candid man, come to 
any other conclusion, than, that this burial was an 
immersion? You can’t bury a man by sprinkling 
dirt on him, nor can you bury a man in water without 
putting him wholly under it.” 

Mr. Ennis’ eyes sparkled, as Mr. Ford made this 
appeal to what he considered unimpeachable testi¬ 
mony. 

It was now Mr. Lovell’s turn. He answered: 

“Brother Ford, admitting your interpretation of 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPIIERD. 


113 


these passages to be correct, do you think they prove 
your position? ” 

“ I most certainly do.” 

“Then I am compelled to take issue with you. 
Your position is, that immersion is the only valid 
mode. Now, granting all you claim, in these several 
cases, it does not invalidate other modes. You have 
only proved a fact, and not a doctrine. You need to 
go a step further, and prove that practice to be in 
obedience to a Divine command; and not a mere 
matter of choice, among other allowable modes. You 
must give us a ‘ thus saith the Lord, nothing but im¬ 
mersion is baptism.’ Unless this is done, your cause 
is lost. For without such a command the Apostles 
would be left free to select one, from two or more, 
possible modes. Before I raise the question of the 
correctness of your inferences from these two passages 
I wish you to point out, chapter and verse, where 
Jesus says: ‘ Nothing but immersion is baptism.’ ” 
This was putting Mr. Ford in a tight place, and he 
felt it. He knew there was no “thus saith the 
Lord,” for immersion. He knew that at best there 
was nothing better than inductive and inferential 
proof. He knew that it was possible that all his 
inductions and inferences might be wrong, so he said: 

“Your argument is too strong for me; for though I 
think my inferences are right, yet I cannot prove them 
to be so. All I can, therefore, claim is, that, as J 
understand these passages, immersion was the mode 
practiced; and I think my opinion is strengthened by 
the meaning of the word itself.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “Then the main difficulty is re- 
8 


114 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


moved, for even though you could prove that in some 
instances the Apostles did practice immersion, that 
does not prove that they always did; nor does it in¬ 
validate other modes. Then, as a sequence, this ques¬ 
tion should be remanded to the realm of personal 
private opinion, and each one left to his own convic¬ 
tions of duty, in regard to the mere matter of mode.” 

“ And now, Brother Ford, let me say that your in¬ 
terpretation of these passages does not satisfy me, and 
so I wish to point out what seems to me your misun¬ 
derstanding of them. 

u In the first place, you assume that water baptism 
is referred to in these two passages. That needs prov¬ 
ing. In the second place, if it were water baptism, 
yet a fair exegesis of them does not sustain your infer¬ 
ence. A few questions,, with their answers, will, I 
think, confirm my statement. 

u Firs'. Into what were they buried, water or death? 

“ The answer is, into death. 

“ Second. What was the agent performing the burial ? 

“Why, ‘baptism.’ That is, the burial is the result 
of the baptism. 

“ Then they cannot be the same, for that would be 
confounding the agent with his work. 

“But further. Does water baptism bury ‘into 
death? ’ Does it produce death to sin? If so, water 
baptism is saving, and we had better go back to the 
ritualism of Borne. Thus your interpretation is hedged 
about with difficulties. 

“ But now suppose the baptism to be spiritual , and 
not ritual, and all the difficulties vanish in a moment; 
for what is not true of water baptism is most emphat- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


115 


ically true of the spiritual. That baptism produces a 
death to sin, buries the old man and his deeds, and 
raises the soul up to a ‘ newness of life,’ in which it 
henceforth walks. This is a i baptism into Christ ,’ by 
which we become members of his spiritual body, the 
Church. According to Paul’s statement in 2 Cor. 
xii : 13, ‘ For by one spirit are we all baptized into one 
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be 
bond or free.’ 

“This conclusion is further strengthened by the 
fact that the topic of discourse in this chapter was 
moral purity, and not ritual baptism. In the first 
verse the Apostle asks, 4 What shall we say, then ? 
Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ? God 
forbid. How shall we, that are dead* to sin, live any 
longer therein. Know ye not that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 

* Dr. Adam Clark, in his comments on this passage, says: “ The 
phraseology of this verse is common among Hebrews, Greeks and 
Latins. To die to a thing or person is to have nothing to do with 
it or him; to be totally separated from them; and to live to a thing 
or person is to be wholly given up to them; to have the most inti¬ 
mate connection with them. So Plantus Clittell, iii : 1, 16, Nihii 
mecum tibi Mortuus Tibi Sum. I have nothing to do with thee; 
I am. dead to thee . Persa, ii : 1, 20, Mihi quidamtu jam, Mor¬ 
tuus Eras, quia te non visitavi. Thou wert dead to me because I 
have not visited thee. 

“ To be dead to sin is to be dead with Christ, who is also dead 
to or entirely separated from it. So to be baptized into Christ is 
to come into the same deadness to sin, or entire separation from it. 
We are thus dead with Christ to the rudiments of the world, to 
sinful affections and habits. It is thus that ‘ baptism ihto Christ ’ 
brings the soul under the renewing, regenerating power of the 
baptizing spirit, changes its character and attitude, and subordinates 
the moral powers to the new life of love.” 


116 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


death. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism 
unto death, etc. There is nothing more evident than 
this: that the whole passage is metaphorical, and not lit¬ 
eral. We are crucified with him in the same sense that 
we are buried with him. This spiritual baptism brings 
the soul under subjection to Christ, and the moral and 
spiritual nature is changed and assimilated to the life 
and character of the baptizer, who destroys sin, works 
purity, and gives abiding peace and joy. Viewed in 
this light, these passages have new force and beauty.” 

These explanations of Mr. Lovell were new to the 
Committee and audience, who listened with great in¬ 
terest. They harmonized so completely with the topic 
of discourse with which the passages were connected, 
that they forced conviction of their truthfulness upon 
the audience and the most of the Committee. Even 
Messrs. Ford, Ennis and Lee were shaken by them. 

Mr. Coleman, to whom this reasoning was not new, 
had watched with great interest the course of argu¬ 
ment pursued by Mr. Lovell. He had thus far met 
and demolished Mr. Ford’s strongest arguments, and 
demonstrated the fact that his ideas of the teaching 
of these passages had grown out of a mistaken view 
of the import of the terms found in them. 

Mr. Ford did not attempt a reply. How could he? 
But yet he could not yield the assent of his mind to 
the conclusions of Mr. Lovell. Nor is this stransre. 
It is a matter of observation, that ideas long cherished, 
like rocks imbedded in the sands of the ocean, do not 
easily give way. An honest, discriminating man will 
feel his way cautiously. He must have time for reflec¬ 
tion and examination. The old and the new must be 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEFHERD. 


117 


brought face to face, and their respective claims sub¬ 
jected to a critical analysis; and then if the new has 
the larger element of practical truth, it will in the end 
prevail. 

It is a cheering fact, and one full of hopeful augur¬ 
ies, that just as the water of a great river will work 
itself pure the further it runs, depositing its sediment 
at the bottom, so Christian Theology,as it flows down 
the stream of time, will continue to work itself free 
from the mistakes with which ignorance and supersti¬ 
tion have loaded it. So the Golden Age of the Church 
shall be reached — the grand millennium by prophets 
sung -— when Christian Theology, with its moulding 
influence on our lives, shall have brought the Chris¬ 
tian world into a glorious unity of thought, feeling 
and sympathy, and so into a true visible unity of 
brotherly love and fellowship. 

Mr. Ford finally remarked: “Brother Lovell your 
exegesis of those passages is new to me, and I must 
confess is a very ingenious one, and carries upon the 
face of it the air of probability. But, after all, I think 
this question must be decided by the philology of the 
word. I suppose you will not deny that 4 Baptizo ,’ 
the word everywhere used in the New Testament 
to express the rite, means immersion, and nothing 
else.” 

“Are you sure of that?” said Mr. Lovell. ^Is it 
not possible that you are mistaken?” 

“ I think I am right in that statement.” 

“I most emphatically deny it, and challenge the 
proof ? ” 

Mr. Ford replied: “Dr. Carson, who was a very 


118 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


learned man, and a Greek scholar, says: ‘The word 
‘ Baptizo' always signifies to dip , never expressing 
anything but mode? He also says ‘ bapto ' the root 
form of Baptizo, has two meanings; the primary to 
dip and the secondary ‘ to dye? In another place he 
says ‘Baptizo, in the entire history of the Greek lan¬ 
guage, has but one meaning, to dip or immerse? 
Again, he says, ‘ It means to dip, and nothing but dip, 
throughout all Greek literature.” 

“Let us see if the Greek Lexicons bear out these 
assertions of Dr. Carson,” said Mr. Lovell, who in 
anticipation of an appeal to the philology of the word, 
had brought the Lexicons and some of the Greek 
Classics from his library. So, taking up Parkust, 
and turning to the word, he read “ Baptizo , from Bapto, 
to dip, to immerse, to plunge, to wash one’s self, to be 
washed, to wash in or with water, in token of purifi¬ 
cation.” Then, taking up Liddell & Scott, he read 
“Baptizo , to dip in or under water, of ships to sink 
them, to bathe, to be deeply in debt, to be bewildered 
with questions, to draw water, to draw wine?' Ap¬ 
pealing next to Donegan, he read “ Baptizo , to dip 
into, to sink, to immerse, to wash, to lave.” 

“These,” said he, “ are from Greek and English Lex¬ 
icons; but Latin Lexicographers give the same defini¬ 
tions. Dip is quite a different thing from immerse. 
It means a light, quick action, and is often used where 
there is no allusion to mode. As ‘ the land dips to the 
south.’ ‘ I have dipped into Geology,’ etc. On the 
other hand, merse or immerse conveys the simple idea 
of in or into. In primary usage they import a heavy 
downward motion. They will put into, but they never 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


119 


take out, and thus express the idea of being into. 
The words 'plunge and sink have yet different shades 
of meaning. The first means a heavy, sudden action, 
but does not carry the idea of immersion, for a horse 
may plunge down a bank, without touching water. 
When a man plunges into a subject, we get the idea 
that he dashes into it and gives himself up to it. The 
word sink conveys yet another idea. It is that of going 
down. A stone thrown into the water sinks. A man, 
by the habit of intoxication, sinks himself to the level 
of a brute. To wish, conveys an idea quite remote 
from any of the other definitions, and is distinct and 
different from dip or immerse , and to bewilder by ask¬ 
ing sophistical questions is still more perplexing to 
Mr. Carson’s statements. While to draw water or 
wine has not the semblance, or even shadow of immer¬ 
sion in it. 

“Thus you see that Dr. Carson takes direct issue 
with the lexicographers. Whom shall we take as author¬ 
ity? Dr. Carson, who wrote under the hallucination 
of an idea, and imagined similitudes where they did 
not exist, and who had a theory to maintain, upon the 
success of which his denominational life depended; or 
shall we take the statements of scores of equally 
learned men who, having no pet theory to maintain, 
were able to give an unbiased judgment in the case?’* 

The facts stated by Mr. Lovell were so self-evi¬ 
dent that Mr. Ford made no reply. Mr. Lovell 
continued: 

“ The truth is, Dr. Carson’s assertions are not sup¬ 
ported by facts. We have the most overwhelming 
testimony from classic Greek authors, that while Bap- 


120 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


tizo was used to express effects produced by mersions, “ 
or immersions, in some cases, yet in others it is used 
to produce effects where the idea of immersion is 
excluded, in form or figure. 

* There is a very significant article from the pen of Rev. 
Thomas J. Melish, of Cincinnati, Ohio, in the Church Union , 
which, as coming from a Baptist minister, is the more important 
from the fact of his prepossessions in favor of immersion. It 
is a brief review of Dr. J. W. Dale on Baptism. He says: 

“The striking and original feature of these works is, that Dr. 
Dale, the author, concedes the definition of the word for which 
Baptists have always contended — merse. This word, from the 
Latin mergo , is the English word he always employs. He prefers 
merse to immerse , on the ground that the Greeks use both embap- 
tizo , which is equivalent to immergo , and immerse; and also bap - 
tizo , which is equivalent to mergo in Latin, and merse in English 
Now, as the New Testament always employs baptizo, and never 
embaptizo, for the ordinance, he thinks merse , rather than immerse, 
is the proper translation. This, however does not aflect the argu¬ 
ment of the result one particle. 

“The new feature of the controversy, as presented by Dr. 
Dale, is, that the word baptize has no necessary connection with 
water at all; that the word being a broad generic word like the 
word merge in English, does not refer to water, unless the context 
so confines it. Otherwise it relates broadly to other things, and 
not to water, as the medium into which one is baptized. For 
example, to be baptized into Christ, or into his death, or into His 
body, or into rcpcntence, or into forgiveness, simply means to be 
merged into those states or conditions, and has no necessary allu¬ 
sion to water at all. 

“Now, Dr. Dale may be wrong in all this, and the purpose of 
this article is not to act as his champion; but we call attention to 
it as a new phase in the argument, which will probably revolu¬ 
tionize the entire question. Perhaps twenty years from now the 
question will not be whether to baptize means to dip, or f>our, or 
sprinkle, but the question will be as to what texts refer to 
the symbolic baptism by water, and what texts have no allu¬ 
sion to the symbolic baptism at all, but to the spiritual relation 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


121 


“ But even if immersion were the classic idea of 
the word, as Dr. Carson asserts, it is no proof that 
when, under Alexander and his successors, the Greek 
became the spoken language of the Jews, the word 
did not put on a new meaning. With the Greeks the 
word had no religious signification. With the Jews 
it was used to express their religious rites of purifica- 

we sustain to Jesus Christ, which involves a higher baptism than 
that of water — a veritable mergement of our spiritual nature 
into Him — a marriage of our spirit and His. 

“John the Baptist certainly indicated this higher baptism 
when he said: ‘ I indeed baptize you in (or with) water, into 
repentcnce; but He that cometh after me is mightier than I; He 
shall baptize you in (or with) the Holy Spirit and fire.’ It will be 
observed that as water is the medium of John’s baptism, so Spirit 
is the medium of Christ’s; Christ is the administrant of the new 
baptism, as John was that of the old; the Spirit is the medium of 
the new baptism, as water was that of the old. In all the passages 
in which spiritual baptism isspoken of this idea is fully exhibited. 
The New Testament gives no support to the popular idea that 
there is a baptism of which the Holy Spirit is the administrant; 
Jesus is the administrator, the Spirit the medium. Jesus baptizes 
His disciples in (or with) the Spirit, as John did his in (or with) 
water. 

“ We commend these works of Dr. Dale, because they will 
awaken investigation and lead to^an entirely different phase of 
the question from that to which we have been accustomed. A 
thousand years have been spent on the old controversy as to how 
symbolic or typical baptism is to be administered, and so far with 
very little result, beyond multiplying new sects in the Christian 
world. This new aspect of the controversy may, perhaps, tend 
to settle the great issue of the ages. At all events, the vol¬ 
umes are full of interest to every independent student of the 
Word of God. They are published by Messrs. Wm. Rutter & 
Co., of Philadelphia, and can be found at most respectable 
booksellers. 

“ Cincinnati, Ohio. 


Rev. T. M. Melish.” 


122 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


tion, and so a new meaning attached to it, while in 
common use the old meaning remained. 

44 We know that to be the case with two other Greek 
words, in particular. Pneuma , w T hich, in classic 
Greek, meant wind , and nothing more, was taken by 
the Jews to express spirit — the Holy Spirit. It must 
be remembered that the Greeks had a word to express 
the idea of a spirit— tiaijuoviov, but it did not convey 
the thought that struggled in the Jewish mind. That 
thought w 7 as an inbreathing, or inspiration of ( Theos) 
God. The other word was 4 Angelos ,’ which simply 
meant 4 Messenger ,’ one bearing a message, and noth¬ 
ing more. The Jewish theology recognized the dis¬ 
tinction between good and bad spirits; the Greeks 
made no such distinction. With them daimonion 
meant an invisible or disembodied spirit. This name 
the Jews restricted to wicked spirits, while they took 
Angelos to express the idea of good spirits , from the 
fact that such spirits, according to their theology, 
w T ere employed in ministering and bearing messages 
from God to man. This was also the Christian idea, 
as Paul, in Hebrews i : 14 , expresses it: 4 Are they 
not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for 
them who shall be heirs of salvation.’ 

“ How, without raising the classic import of the word 
Baptizo , it is clear that among the Jews and Christians 
it was in some sense synonymous with 4 louo ,’ to wash, 
and 4 Icatharizo ,’ to purify or cleanse. But it had also 
a meaning that those words had not. It was to bring 
into, or bring under , as to bring into a condition of 
purity , and to bring under the authority or control 
of. It therefore, implies 4 changed condition ” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


123 


Mr. Ford, replied: “In regard to pneuma and 
angelos , there is no doubt of the truth of your state¬ 
ment. But, I am not so sure about the definition you 
give to ‘ Baytizo? If you can prove that, you will 
entirely upset my theory, and I shall be obliged to- 
abandon it.” 


CHAPTER VIII. 


E R. LOVELL took up the Greek Testament, and 
turning to Mark, vii: 2, 3, 4, asked Mr. Ford 
to read the passage carefully. He did so. 
44 How,” said Mr. Lovell, 44 you see that the word 
uniptois , from nipto, to wash, to purify one’s self; 
which is translated unwashen hands in the second 
verse, and in the third verse by nipsontai , 4 wash ,’ is 
used to express the same idea that Baptizontai and 
Baptismous do in the fourth verse. But the trans¬ 
lators have rendered Baptisontai, 4 wash ,’ and Baptis- 
rnous , 4 washing.’ 

44 They have doubtless given us a true rendering of 
the words in this passage, for these infectious of Bap- 
tizo do here express the idea of wash, in the sense of 
purify; while nipto and nipsontai mean simply to 
wash. The words Baptisontai and Baptis mous, mean 
to bring into, and the act of bringing into a condition 
of cleanliness or purity. 

44 In the 3d Chapter of John, 25th and 26th verses, 
we are informed that, 4 there arose a question between 
some of John’s Disciples and the Jews, about purify¬ 
ing, and they came unto John, and said unto him, 
4 Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to 
whom thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth, 
and all men come to him.’ Here Katherismou, in 
the 25th verse, refers to the same general fact that 
Baptisthei does in the 26th verse, and shows that the 
( 124 ) 



ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


125 


words were used interchangeably, with the slight 
difference, that Katherismou refers to the simple fact 
of purifying, while Baptisthei refers to the bringing 
into a state or condition of purity.” 

Mr. Ford was too honest and candid to attempt to 
evade the force of a fact so clearly proven. When, 
therefore, Mr. Lovell gave these proofs in regard to 
the import of Baptizo , he simply said: 

“ I am not prepared to raise an issue with you, on 
the statements you have made. But it looks singular 
to me, that the word should have so many meanings.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “ I think our English and Ger¬ 
man scholars, not being native Greeks, have failed to 
apprehend the root thought of the word. There is a 
thought underlying the different meanings of the 
word, which, if we can ascertain, will, like a master 
key, unlock every passage, in either Classic or Hellen¬ 
istic Greek; and show a complete harmony and agree¬ 
ment between them all. It is a word that cannot be 
translated by any single term in the English lan¬ 
guage. 

“For instance, dip will not do it, for there are 
many passages in Greek literature where that word 
will not answer. Nor can it be properly translated 
by the word immerse , for it takes the prefix em to 
Baptizo to make immerse. Merse being the word 
more appropriate to express its meaning, yet there 
are many passages where that word fails. This is 
true for all Greek literature. What we need is a 
meaning for Baptizo , which will give a critical, and 
luminous sense to every passage in Classic and Hel¬ 
lenistic Greek; and this meaning must be uniform. 


126 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ That master key of the word Baptizo, is in the 
idea of subordination and control/ the bringing of 
persons, and things, under the control of other per¬ 
sons, and things. Hence it is a suggestion of change 
in condition. 

“ In illustration of this, I will now select a number 
of passages from Greek authors, which I wish you to 
read, and then render into English.” 

Mr. Lovell then took Achilles Tatius, and turning 
to Leucippe and Clit, iii : 10, said: “Please read 
this.” 

Mr. Ford took the book and studied the passage a 
few moments and then read as follows: “ Tooovru nM/Vet 
jscnrTiGOijvai Kan&vy “ Tosouto plethei Baptisthenai/ ha- 
kon. n The whole passage reads thus: “What crime 
have we committed so great, as in a few days to be 
baptized by such a multitude of evils f ” 

“ If you carefully consider this passage you will see 
that the thought expressed is, that they were brought 
under the power and controlling influence of those 
evils; while there is no statement of modal act, like 
immersion, or otherwise,” remarked Mr. Lovell. 

He then took the same volume, and turning to vii : 2, 
said: “ Please read this, also.” 

'Mr. Ford read as follows: “ ’BuTTiTTTovaat de ai Tv%ai BaTirg- 
ovgl vnag” “Empiptousai de ai tuchai Baptizousi 
hemas .” “Misfortunes befalling baptized us .” 

“JDo you not see,” said Mr. Lovell, “that the 
thought is, ‘ misfortunes exercise a controlling influ¬ 
ence over us. 5 ” He continued: 

“ I will now refer you to passages of Baptism by 
wine.” So taking up Conon Narrat. L., he pointed 


ONE FOIJD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


127 


him to the following passage, which Mr. Ford read as 

follows I “0 ivo tto/Mo Alegavdpov BanTtcacai.” 44 OillO d& 

polio Alexandron Baptisasai.” 44 Having baptized 
Alexander by much wine.” 

Mr. Lovell then gave the history of the case, as 
follows: 44 This Alexander was a tyrant, and detested 
by his subjects, and abusive to his queen, Thebe. 
The narrative says: 4 Thebe, exhorted to the murder, 
and having Baptized Alexander by much wine (that 
is, she got him beastly drunk), then dismissing the 
guards of the bed chamber, under pretence of wishing 
to use the bath, she called the brothers to the work.’ 
In this baptism with wine , there was no modal act 
expressed, either in form or figure. The baptism was 
the bringing the King under the power and control 
of the wine. 

“Here is another passage,” Mr. Lovell continued: 
“It is the case of Baptism by a stupefying drug.” 

Then handing him Achilles Tatius, at Leueippe 
and Clit, ii: 31, said: 44 Bead this, also.” 

Mr. Ford read: “Hv ™ avro tbapfiaKG) Kara BairriGag.' 1 ' 

“ An to auto pharmaco Kata Baptisas .” 44 Whom 
having thoroughly baptized by the same drug.” 
44 The entire passage reads thus: 4 Satyr us had 
somewhat left of the drug by which he had put 
Conops to sleep. Of this, while serving us, he 
pours secretly into the cup, which he brought to 
Panthia. She, rising, went into her chamber, and 
immediately slept. But Leucippa had another cham¬ 
ber servant, 4 whom having Baptized by the same 
drug! Satyrus comes to the doorkeeper at the third 
door, and him he cast down by the same potion.’ ” 


128 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


Mr. Lovell said: “ In this passage, the same general 
fact is stated in four different ways. lie put Conops 
to sleep — Panthai sleeps — Baptizes Leucippa’s ser¬ 
vant and cast dow7i the doorkeeper . But each 
expresses a different shade of thought. ‘ Baptisas,’ 
here, expresses the idea of bringing into a condition 
of stupor. But there is no thought of immersion 
whatever.” 

Then, addressing Mr. Ford, he said: 

“ What do you think now of the meaning of Bap- 
tizo , as you find it in these passages of classic Greek? ” 

“ I must confess that it will be hard work to get 
immersion out of them, or any modal act; and why 
Dr. Carson should have made so bold an assertion as 
he did looks strange to me.” * 

* The following passage from Proclus, with comments upon 
it, is an extract from Beecher on Baptism: 

“ Let us now look at a beautiful passage in Proclus, which pre¬ 
sents this import of the word to the mind in various relations, 
and with the clearness of a sunbeam. P. 280, Rome, 1G30. It is 
an oration on the Epiphany, and is an expansion of the idea con¬ 
tained in the reply of John to Christ. ‘I have need to be bap¬ 
tized of thee; and comest thou to me?’ In expounding this 
question the Fathers took great delight, and their expansion 
always turned on the idea, How can the polluted purify the pure? 
How can one under condemnation acquit his judge ? ntig ToApyou 
fiaizTlccu ce ; ttSte nvp vi to x^P~ 0V Kafiaiperai] n6 te 7ra?,bg ttAvvel irrfyfjv] 
nug ficnTTicci) rov Kpiri)v . 6 vtt svOwog ; nug ficiTCTLGLd ce dlarrora ; pcbpov 
ov fiXeTTG) ev ool. tt) aarapa tov ’ A dap ovx vtzetv Tjoag, apapriav ovk. 
EKo'iTjoag. Ilcdf fiacraoEL rj yrj dp&oa tov rovg ayyeAovg ayia^ovra, vtt o 
avdpfanov apapruAov Bann^dpEvov ; nug ce fiaiTTioa dEonoTa, rolg ek 
ysvioEug poAvopotg ov npocopCk^cavra ; nug ovv eyb) Karappvnog avOpunog 
dyvioo Qe6v ; ! Qeov dvapapTTjTOV ; fianTtGTTjv anEGTEiAag dicnoTa , ov 
napfaovoag rov gov tv poor ay par og. 

“ I have abbreviated this passage somewhat, and yet, because 




ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


129 


“ Not at all strange to me,” Mr. Lovell replied. 
“Like many other good men, by a misconception of 
the real design of baptism, and a misinterpretation of 
the language of the New Testament in regard to it, 
he came to the same conclusion with yourself and 
others, that immersion was taught and practiced in 
the Apostolic Churches; and then finding that the 
Greeks used the word to express the idea of mersion 
or physical envelopment, he sought to find that idea 
in all Greek literature, overlooking the fact that words 
in all languages modify their meaning from time to 
time. 

“ I will give a few illustrations of this fact from our 
own language. Take, for instance, our English word 
spring. Webster says the primary meaning of the 
word is to ‘leaps to ‘ shoot .’ It expresses sudden 

of its beauty, and varied use of language, have retained more 
than I usually quote. Its main force lies in the expression, ‘ How 
shall I, who am under sentence of condemnation, purify?’ i. e. 
acquit my judge. ‘ircjg parcr tou tov Kpcrrjv 6 vTrvdwog. How 
absurd, in such a passage, to inquire how shall I, a culprit, im¬ 
merse mj r judge ? But take in the sense purify, or acquit, 

and it at once harmonizes the whole passage. Nor is this all; 
the laws of antithesis demand this sense. Let us thus translate 
it: ‘How shall I dare to purify thee? When is the fire purified 
by the stubble ? When does the clay wash the fountain ? How 
shall I, a culprit, purify (or acquit) my judge? How shall I 
purify thee, O Lord ? I see no fault in thee. Thou hast not fal¬ 
len under the curse of Adam. Thou hast committed no sin. 
How will the earth endure to see Him, who makes pure the 
angels, purified by a sinful man? How shall I purify thee, O 
Lord, who hast never participated in the pollutions of birth ? 
How, then, shall I, a polluted man, purify God ? The sinless 
God. Thou hast sent me as a purifyer. Hast thou not disre¬ 
garded thine own command ?’ ” 

9 


130 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


motion in a certain direction, specified by some defin¬ 
ing word, as up, down, forward, backward, out, in, etc. 
Now see what modifications of meaning it has since 
put on. From a verb it becomes a noun, as in the 
.sentence, ‘ The beautiful Spring, when nature decks 
Lerself in robes of green.’ It thus becomes the name 
•of one of the seasons of the year, suggested from the 
fact that at that season vegetation springs to birth. 
Then, as a noun, it puts on another meaning, to ex¬ 
press, a fountain of water rising out of the earth. It 
has yet another, as applied to the spring of a carriage, 
or spring of a trap. In each instance deriving its use 
from the primal idea, to leap, to shoot. 

“ You will also observe another fact in the philology 
of words, namely, that a word putting on a new mean¬ 
ing derived from the root thought or primal definition, 
does, by long usage, come to have a meaning of its 
own, which was allied to the original word in the out¬ 
set, metaphorically; but in common use it drops its 
metaphorical character, and expresses an idea distinct 
from its primal use. 

u The same law is observed in the words 4 board ’ 
and ‘ prevent .’ The primal idea of board is a piece 
of timber, having certain relations to itself, as to 
length, breadth, and thickness; but in metaphorical 
use, it has come to mean a corporate body of men, as 
4 The Board of Aldermen.’ ‘ The American Board,’ etc. 
from being a noun, it assumes a verbal character as 
4 Where do you board? ’ and boarding a vessel. 

“ In the word ‘prevent ’ we have its primal Latin 
meaning of going before to help. By subsequent 
usage it has come to mean the effect of going before , 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


131 


namely, to hinder . No one using the word thinks of 
its root thought ‘ to go before , ‘ and the word has come 
to have a radical meaning of its own, diametrically 
opposite to its primal definition. So, also, when we 
speak of a corporate board, the mind never associates 
with it the primal meaning of the word; it thus assumes 
a meaning of its own, as much so as it would had it 
sprung from some other word. 

The word Baptizo has been subjected to the same 
law. No one doubts that the primal idea was physi¬ 
cal envelopment, well defined by the Latin word 
* mergo ,’ and the English word i merse 9 (inness,) or a 
condition of mersion. There is no doubt that, asso¬ 
ciated with it, there was also the idea of subordination 
and control , by which the baptizing agent impressed 
its own characteristics upon the object or subject bap¬ 
tized. It naturally drew this last idea from its root, 
bapto , to dye, to color, to stain. Associated with this 
meaning of bapto was that of dip , from the fact that 
things dyed were dipped in the coloring fluid, as a 
means of changing the color of the thing dyed to its 
own. But in subsequent usage both bapto and bap¬ 
tizo put on new modifications of meaning, to adapt 
them to new shades of thought. 

“ Thus, as Dr. J. W. Dale says: 

u 1. Bapto puts its object into a fluid element and 
withdraws it promptly. 

“ 2. It changes the state or quality of its object, as to 
color, by putting it into a coloring fluid. 

“ 3. It changes the state or quality of its object, as to 
color, by pressure, sprinkling, or otherwise. 


132 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ 4. It clianges the state or quality of its object, where 
color is not involved. 

“ The same is true in regard to baptizo: 
u 1. It merses or envelopes its object within a fluid 
element, without providing for its removal. 

“ 2. It influences controllingly its object by such mer- 
sion. 


“ 3. It influences controllingly its object without any 
mersion. 

“4. It drowns, it makes drunk, it stupefies. 

“Thus, baptizo expresses any complete change ot 
condition, by whatsoever agency eflected, or in what¬ 
soever way applied.” 

To these statements of Mr. Lovell Mr. Ford could 
make no reply, for he knew that the words spring, 
board and prevent had undergone just those changes, 
and it was evident that bapto and baptizo had under¬ 
gone just the changes to which Mr. Lovell had called 
his attention; and that they had assumed new mean¬ 
ings, without any reference to their primal meaning, 
beyond the underlying thought of condition , subordi¬ 
nation and assimilation. 

Mr. Lovell thought it well to fortify his position by 
further quotations from the classic Greek. So he con¬ 
tinued : 

“ I have given you only four out of a multitude of 
passages where the idea of immersion is entirely exclu¬ 
ded. I will now give a few more. 

“ We have the following from Plutarch Alexander 
lvii. ‘ BaTTri^ovreg ek tuOiov fizyakwv. TzgoEmvov' i ddaptlZOn- 
tes ek pithon megalone proepinon .’ ‘ Baptizing out 

of great wine jars. Drank to one another.’ 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


133 


“ And this from Achilles Tatius, VI. 19: ‘'o M 

6vp.iL BeB aKTio/ievos naradvETai lk Ilo de to thwTIO JBeFaptISO- 

menos kaiaduetai? 6 But he, baptized by anger, sinks.’ 
Also this from HellodOTUS. ‘ Msoai vvktes vTrvo) rrjv ir6?uv. 
eB airriZov. i When midnight baptizes the city in sleep? 

“ Take this, also, from Heimerius, xv : 3, ‘ ’EBd? mas 
yap ohrv ekei tjjv 'Aa’.av i uax6 l u£voc ?: * Fov there fighting, he 

baptized all Asia? And this, also, from Libanius, 
Declam, xx: ‘ 'H.S alaplg irepl tjv rf/v ’Aoiav kBaKnaag . 1 : i Sal¬ 
arm S, where thou didst baptize Asia? 

“ I will quote but one passage more from Jewish 

Antiquities, X : 9: ‘Kru BsBaTCTiopevov elg avaiaOrjaiav nal 

vttvov fab tt)c [ito 7c.’ i And baptized by drunkenness into 
insensibility and sleep? In all these passages, which 
might be largely multiplied, there is no allusion to 
any modal act, or immersion, but only to condition 
and controlling influence. 

“ In the light of these facts, I appeal to Brother 
Ford, if I am not sustained in the statement I now 
make, namely: Whatever is capable of thoroughly 
changing the character, state or condition of an object 
or person, does by such active influence or power, 
baptize it.” 

Mr. Ford replied: “It is useless to contend against 
facts. I cannot deny the correctness of your state¬ 
ment. I now see that our mistake lies in the fact that 
we have regarded the act of immersion as the baptism, 
instead of the effect of the mersion.” 

“ In looking at these various classic baptisms, where 
do you find any specific modal act? ” said Mr. Lovell. 

“ So far as the philological argument is concerned, I 
give it up. Dr. Carson was certainly mistaken. We 


134 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


cannot rely on that to sustain the practice of immersion, 
and we must look to other sources for proof. I must 
confess the argument is on your side, and you seem 
have to found the true definition of the word,” Mr. 
Ford replied. 

Messrs. Ennis and Lee each nodded assent to this 
statement of Mr. Ford, while a murmur of applause 
ran through the audience. Mr. Lovell gathered up 
the books he had brought from his library and placed 
them in order for transportation home. 

He then expressed his thanks to Mr. Ford for his 
frank confession of the truth of his conclusions. He 
then invited Mr. Coleman to express his views of the 
the meaning of bajitizo, wishing him to correct any 
mistakes he had discovered in his reasonings. Mr. 
Coleman, in answer, said: 

“Dear Christian Friends: This discussion is not 
for the triumph of any party or sect, as I understand 
it, but an honest inquiry into the subject of baptism, 
for the sake of truth, and the greater harmony it will 
bring. I honor both Brothers Ford and Ennis for 
their zeal and fidelity for the truth as they understand 
it. They could not do less, and be true to their con¬ 
victions of duty and loyalty to Christ. 

“ I am equally pleased to note their candor, and the 
sweet spirit they manifest in acknowledging that 
while they think they are right, they freely admit that 
possibly they may be wrong. This is certainly Chris¬ 
tian. AVe are all finite, and liable to err in our views 
of truth and duty. Hence an earnest and friendly 
interchange of thoughts on the subjects that have come 


i 



ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


135 


under review, I trust, will bring us nearer together in 
our views of practical truth. 

“ I will briefly state what the result of my investi¬ 
gations upon this subject have led me to think, and 
then leave you to judge how far I am right, and in 
what particulars I am wrong. 

“ In looking into this subject, I was much impressed 
with the confusion of ideas and differences of opinion 
that scholars had fallen into; some asserting that the 
word Baptiso means to dip , others to immerse; some 
that it means to whelm , or plunge , etc.; while others 
assert with equal confidence, that it means also to 
wash , to bathe. Amid this confusion, the question 
arose in my mind, as to whether any of these learned 
men had caught the true root idea of the word. I 
remembered that none of them were native Greeks, 
and that all they knew of the language was from the 
study of it in classical Greek authors, and the New 
Testament. 1 remembered, also, that every language 
has its idioms, in which a certain combination of words 
would convey an idea, distinct and different from that 
which, when taken separately, the words would import. 
As an illustration: In the Arabic the sentence, ‘ He 
has eaten the stick] means, 4 He was punished or whip¬ 
ped. ? What person, not understanding the genus and 
inner life of the Arabic, would dream of such a defi¬ 
nition as that? We have also an illustration of a sim¬ 
ilar use of words in our own language. I freely 
concede that it is not a classical expression, but for its 
kind it is quite forcible. It is this: 1 He cut a sticks 
The idea is, he ran away, cut loose from the place he 
was living at. What foreigner, studying ourlanguage > 


136 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEFHERD. 


would get that idea from the definition of the words 
composing it? 

“ These facts impressed me with the idea that there 
was a central thought that found expression in all the 
varying uses of the word Baptizo. A thought that 
our lexicographers and learned men had failed to 
apprehend. They had therefore, given the word a 
variety of definitions, as dip, merse, immerse, whelm, 
wash, bathe, etc., simply because they found the word 
associated with circumstances that conveyed these sev¬ 
eral ideas. This led me to raise the inquiry, if there 
was not some root thoughts , or central idea , running 
through all the uses of the word. If such a root 
thought did exist, if found, it would, as Brother Lovell 
said, like a master key, unlock every passage where 
the word occurs, and give new beauty and significance 
to it. Applied to Christian baptism, it would lift it 
to a higher plane, and make it the exponent of a great 
saving truth. There is no single definition of the 
word given in any of the dictionaries that will unlock 
every passage where the word occurs, which shows 
that the true one has not been found, unless it be ‘ con¬ 
dition ,’ the effect of some procuring cause. Suppose 
we take changed condition , or subordination and con¬ 
trol^ and as Brother Lovell said, you may try it upon 
every passage where the word occurs, in the entire 
range of Greek literature, and it will unlock every one 
of them. It is a definition that will fit in with merse ) 
immerse , whelm , plunge , bathe, pour , sprinkle. This 
leads me to think that it means condition , resultant 
from whatever cause or agent that can produce effects. 
Take, for instance, the cases just enumerated by Brother 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


13T 


Lovell: A ship is whelmed in the sea and sinks. It 
is brought under the power and control of the waves, 
and is lost, A man thrown thus into the sea is bap¬ 
tized, in the classic Greek sense, because he is under 
the power of the waves, and, unless rescued, will surely 
drown. When so rescued, he is debaptised, or brought 
from under the control and peril of the waves. 

“So much for the word in its classical use. But 
when used to express a religious truth, while the com¬ 
mon classic idea still attaches to it, it becomes the 
medium of a snblimer thought, unfolding a great 
spiritual truth. 

“ In the Christian use of the word, neither immer¬ 
sion, sprinkling, or pouring, are of themselves bap¬ 
tism; persons may be immersed again and again, as 
boys are in bathing, but this is not baptism. They 
may be out in a shower, and sprinkled till they are 
wet, and it is not a baptism. Because the very thing 
that constitutes a baptism is wanting—the being 
brought under the controlling influence of a vow or 
pledge of obedience to Christ. 

“The spiritual baptism brings its subjects into a 
new and changed condition — from a state of sin, 
condemnation, and spiritual death, to a state or con¬ 
dition of holiness, justification, and spiritual life.” 

These remarks of Mr. Coleman fully corroborated 
the statements of Mr. Lovell. 

After a silence of a few moments, in which the 
Committee and audience were waiting for a reply 
from Mr. Ford, the Moderator asked him if he had 
any thing to say. 

Mr. Ford arose, and with deep emotion said: “Mr. 


138 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEKD. 


Moderator, and members of the Committee: I have 
this to say, that both Brothers Lovell and Coleman 
have presented the subject in an entirely new light to 
to me. They have gone deeper into this subject than 
I have. Their arguments are conclusive, and I can 
only yield the question, and own myself conquered, 
so far as the meaning of the word Baptizo is con¬ 
cerned. But still 1 think the Apostolic mode was 
immersion, though I have no positive proof of the 
fact.” 

Mr. Lovell resumed: “I have admitted all alone: 

o 

that it was quite possible that there may have been a 
partial mersion in the case of John’s baptism. But 
my idea is, that the mersion did not make the baptism. 
But after all, if this question of mode is of such vital 
importance as you and Brother Ennis have seemed to 
think, was it not a strange oversight, that the Master 
did not settle it by some explicit command?” 

Mr. Ford replied: “I should suppose Lie would 
have done so.” 

“ And yet He did not.” 

“ It seems so, or there would have been no differ¬ 
ence of opinion between us, as at present,” said Mr. 
Ford. 

“If the Master did not deem the mere mode of 
sufficient importance to be the subject of a specific 
command, why should we, as brethren, separate and 
break fellowship over it? Why not let each disciple 
settle it for himself, and act accordingly ? ” 

“ That is the platform we shall be obliged to stand 
on in the future,” Mr. Ford replied. 

“Brother Ford, you call yourself a Baptist, while I 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


139 


have belonged to the class of Christians called Con- 
gregationalists, but what really separates us? It is 
not the question of Church Government, for in that 
we are agreed. Is is not the duty of Baptism itself, 
for in that we are also agreed. What then is it that 
is allowed to separate us? Simply that you insist 
that my way of fulfilling the duty is wrong. I have 
challenged you to prove that fact. Have you done 
it?” 

“ I have tried, and —” 

“ Failed,” said Mr. Lyman. 

“ Yes, Brother Lyman, I have as yet failed.” 

Mr. Lovell resumed: “And because I cannot see 
my duty through the eyes of our Baptist brethren, 
they reject me, and others who think as I do, from the 
Lord’s Supper; thus treating us as aliens in our 
Father’s house, though regarding us as brethren.” 

Mr. Ford replied with a smile: “ I think you are 
rather hard on us, but perhaps we deserve it. I know 
it is the Baptists who refuse communion at the Lord’s 
Table with unimmersed persons; while the pedo- 
baptist churches would gladly admit us to communion 
with them. I must confess to a growing conviction 
that in this matter we have been wrong, and can offer 
no good reason for our course. The only excuse I 
have to offer is that we have done so under a mistaken 
view of our duty. 

“ I have tried to justify the practice on the ground 
of close baptism, in the light I set it forth in my 
opening speech; and yet, I must confess, it always 
gave me unpleasant feelings to see those passed by 
whom I regarded as good Christian brethren, and I 


140 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


know felt grieved at such treatment. I knew it was 
an implied censure of them, as disorderly, while at 
the same time I knew they regarded themselves as 
truly baptized as we were.” 

“ I rejoice at your frank confession,” said Mr. Lovell. 

“ And now, Brother Ford, would you, or any one be¬ 
lieving immersion to be the Scriptural mode, surren¬ 
der any truth which you regard as vital, by assuming 
church relations with those who did not regard it in 
the light you do; but who give evidence that they are • 
real disciples of Christ, so long as you and they were 
at perfect liberty to cherish your own convictions un¬ 
molested, and to practice accordingly? ” 

“ Why, as to that, if nothing was put into the creed 
or articles of faith, but those doctrinal truths held 
alike by all Evangelical Christians, I see no reason 
why I could not unite as a private Christian; but as a 
minister, the case would be different. Believing, as I 
do, that immersion is the Apostolic mode, how could 
I administer the rite by sprinkling or pouring? ” 

Mr. Coleman replied: “Brother Ford, I understood 
you to relinquish the idea that immersion is the only 
valid mode, and that other modes might be valid; so 
believing, it seems to me that your objection has no 
force, for in that case it would be only granting the 
candidate a choice between two or more allowable 
•modes. His choice might not be your choice, but 
since baptism is more than mode, just as prayer is 
more than the posture of the body, so the mode is a 
circumstance that does not affect the validity of the 
rite. I do not see that you could conscientiously 
object to an act that would not be sinful in itself. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


141 


“As an illustration: You have no doubt that 
kneeling was an Apostolic posture of the body in 
prayer, for Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, states 
explicitly that Paul knelt when he prayed with the 
Elders of Ephesus, Acts, xx : 36. Peter knelt when 
be prayed for the restoration of JDorcas. Acts, ix : 40. 
And yet you have no conscientious scruples about 
standing on }mur feet when you pray — simply because 
you do not deem the posture of the body essential to 
prayer. 




CHAPTER IX. 


& FTER all,” said Mr. Ford, “ I cannot divest 
myself of the conviction that the Apostolic 
practice was wholly by immersion, and it seems 
o me to be wrong to depart from it. It certainly was 
the practice in the latter part of the first century, as I 
read history; and if it was not the practice of the 
Apostles, when and how did it arise?” 

“ At first sight, the probabilities are in your favor,” 
said Mr. Lovell. “ It is a question worth examining, 
for the sake of greater unanimity of sentiment among 
Christians. However, a question arises, like this: 
Have we come into the possession of the facts in the 
case? I know that certain writers have stated the 
case just as you understand it.* Upon what evidence 

* Booth, in his ‘ Pedobaptism Examined,” quotes Deylingius, 
who says: “So long as the Apostles lived, as many believe, 
immersion , only, was used, to which afterwards, perhaps, they 
added a kind of affusion, such as the Greeks practice at this day , 

AFTER HAVING PERFORMED THE TRUE IMMERSION.” Do the 

Greeks, at this day, add a kind of pouring after immersion? 
Then they do not consider immersion as the whole of baptism, 
but only as preparatory to it. “ As many believe, immersion, only, 
was used.” There are many in our day who so believe, but 
upon what authority? The belief amounts to nothing, unless it 
is based upon unimpeachable testimony. “Perhaps” affusion 
was the prim alive practice, and the immersion was afterward 
added. Deylingius states, as a historical fact, that in his day the 
Greeks practiced affusion. Did they understand their mother 
tongue? Then they understood Bciptizo to mean a something 
which could be accomplished by pouring. 

(142) 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


143 


did they state it? They no doubt had what they 
thought authority, but had they examined all the tes¬ 
timony? Then, suppose it were true that in some 
provinces of the then Roman Empire a total immer¬ 
sion was practiced, as I presume it was, was it a 
universal practice? Now, suppose w r e fold varying 
practices, in different provinces, and different practices 
in the churches of the same provinces? For instance, 
suppose we iind that while baptism was practiced by 
immersion in some cases, it was also administered by 
affusion, in others, in the same church. Then, which 
of these practices was the primative one, and which 
was the innovation? Then again, the question arises: 
was the immersion the baptism in full, or was it 
preparatory to it? 

“ There is yet another inquiry, the answer to which 
may aid us in forming a correct opinion: What were 
the prepossessions of the writers who gave us the 
history of those early times, and had they all the facts 
upon which to form a truthful opinion? If they were 
previously committed to immersion as the proper 
mode, they would be likely to draw‘conclusions from 
the writers they consult different from those who were 
not thus committed.” 

Mr. Ford replied: “These are difficult questions 
for the most of us to settle. The want of time, and 
access to those ancient records, place it beyond the 
reach of any but those scholars who devote their lives 
to the investigation of this and similar subjects. 
And now, Brother Lovell, what are we to do, if we can 
not rely on their statements?” 

“Allow me to express just one thought,” said Mr. 


144 ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

Coleman. “That is this: We often misunderstand 
the early Christian writers, from the fact that we 
attach a different meaning to the terms they used, and 
draw other conclusions than those which they meant 
to convey. Thus they speak of the 4 grace of baptism,’ 
and ot the 4 laver of regeneration.’ Now the question 
is: did they use these tenns in reference to w T ater or 
ritual baptism, or did they refer to the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit, in the use of these, as metaphorical 
terms? ” 

Mr. Lovell replied: 44 1 gather the idea from these 
early writers, that they used these terms wuth refer¬ 
ence to ritual baptism, but supposed that some regen¬ 
erating power accompanied the rite. That is, that the 
Holy Spirit wrought through the agency of the water. 
Thus, Irenjeus says: 4 They (infants) are regenerated 
in the same way of regeneration in which w r e have 
been regenerated, for they have been washed with 
water in the name of the Father, and of the Son-, and 
of the Holy Ghost.’ Thus, too, Augustine: 4 Infants 
are baptized for the remission of sins.’ ” 

Mr. Ford replied: 44 If they meant to convey the 
idea that water baptism is saving, then with the writ¬ 
ings of the Apostles in our hands, we see that they 
were the victims of a blind, super'stious ritualism.” 

Mr. Lovell resumed: 44 We have an illustration of 
the ease with which a great spiritual truth may be 
misunderstood and the shadow taken for the substance, 
in the case of circumcision. This rite was practiced for 
ages, among the Jews, and in studying the religious 
life of that people, we are led to think they under¬ 
stood the term as referring chiefly, if not wholly, to 


Fra. £>.— Baptism: of Christ tx .Tokdax. 



This representation is the center-piece of the dome of the Bap¬ 
tistry at Ravenna, which building was erected A. D. 454. 

John Baptist is drawn as standing on the bank of the river* 
holding in his right hand a shell, from which he pours water 
upon the head of Jesus, who is standing in the water. Over him 
is a crown of glory and the figure of a dove, symbolizing the 
Holy Spirit. The rite of baptism appears to be performed both 
by a partial mersion and by aspersion also. The nameJordann is 
written over the head of a mythological figure, which, according’ 
to the custom of the ancients, represents that river. 

(See Chapters IX and X.) 

























X 



















































ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


145 


circumcision in the flesh. But Paul says: ‘He is not 
a Jew that (who) is one outwardly, neither is that cir- 
cumcism which is outward in the flesh; hut he is a 
Jew that (who) is one inwardly, and circumcision is 
of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose 
praise is not of men, but of God.’ ” 

Mr. Coleman replied: “ It is quite possible that in 
the second and third centuries the church had drifted 
from the spirituality of the Apostolic churches into a 
superstitious reliance on forms, using them as charms. 
In that case we can see how a total immersion took 
the place of the mersion of the lower part of the 
body, as practiced at an earlier date, for if there is 
a regenerating power in the water, then let the entire 
body have the benefit of it.* But the question recurs: 

* Some time since, a Rev. S. D. Ford gave, in the Watchman 
and Reflector , an article on ritual baptism, as administered in the 
fourth and fifth centuries. He quoted authorities to show the 
fact that both sexes were baptized by immersion in a nude state. 
His theory for the reason of these nude baptisms was, that they 
were performed in order to symbolize “ the putting off the old 
man.” A writer in the Church Union , in noticing that article, 
says: 

“There is no doubt about the facts, but we think the 
writer’s theory about the reason is incorrect. On the other hand, 
we think the superstitious views of the efficacy of ritual baptism 
sufficiently accounts for their practice. The truth is, that from 
the original simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus, the primitive 
church gradually drifted, until the theory of baptismal regenera¬ 
tion was universally received. 

“ This theory of baptismal regeneration fully explains the 
whole modus of nude immersions, as practiced in that age. Bap¬ 
tism was considered as a bath, charged by the Holy Ghost, whose 
divine energies were imparted through the waters of baptism, as 
electricity through an electric bath. Of course, with such a the. 

10 


146 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


Did the ‘ Fathers ’ understand or believe that there 
was a regenerating power in the water, or did they 
regard it as the symbol of the spiritual baptism which 
might or might not accompany ritual baptism?” 

Mr. Lovell resumed: “To return to the question of 
the mode, as practiced from the Second Century and 
downward: Did they practice immersion as we un¬ 
derstand it? Let me here say that soon after my 

ory of baptism, immersion in water, would be an indispensible 
mode, and to baptize the candidate with the clothes on, would 
impair the virtue of the bath. They reasoned concerning bap¬ 
tism, in short, just as we should about an electric bath, and we 
need go no further for a reason for the practice.” 

This theory of regeneration wrought by the Holy Ghost in 
the very act of ritual baptism, is still held by the Roman 
Catholic Church, and is, indeed, the very pivot of its doctrinal 
system. The Greek Catholics, also, have the same view of the 
rite, and have retained and brought down to our day the practice, 
as it existed in both the East and West, in the fourth and fifth 
centuries. They perform baptism on naked babes, by dipping 
three times. In some portions of the Oriential Church, the naked 
child is seated in the font, the water being up to its breast, aftei 
which the priest pours water three times upon its head, follow- 
ing it up by the chrism, or anointing of head, ears, etc. 

Why the Roman Catholic Church laid aside the practice of 
nude immersions, while it still retains the doctrinal idea ot the 
Divinely-energized bath, is difficult to account for. But the his 
torical fact is, that the Western Church gradually adopted pour¬ 
ing and sprinkling as the mode of ritual baptism, while the 
Eastern Church continued the practice of immersion, either total 
or partial, as already explained. 

It is also a notable fact that the Eastern or Greek Church does 
not re-baptize those who come to their church from the Roman 
Catholics; notwithstanding its own practice has always been that 
of dipping in water for baptism, it accepts the baptism of Rome, 
performed in another way. In this respect it is less baptistic 
than the Baptists. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


147 


conversion, my mind was drawn to a consideration of 
this question of Apostolic baptism. My earliest im¬ 
pressions were the same as Brother Ford’s, namely, 
that the Apostolic practice was immersion. So I 
know how to sympathize with him.” A smile suffused 
Mr. Ford’s face. 

He continued: “I was then pursuing my College 
course, and had access to such books in the library as 
were adapted to throw light on the subject; and I 
took pains to examine it in all its bearings.” 

“ What was the result of your investigations? ” in¬ 
quired Mr. Ford. 

“ I ascertained the following facts: 

“ First , A partial submersion was commonly, 
though not always, practiced, from the latter part of 
the First Century. At a later date, say from the be¬ 
ginning of the Third Century, a total immersion was 
practiced in some portions of the Church, while in 
others the earlier practice was still continued. 

“ Second , These mersions were not considered the 
whole of the rite, but only as preparatory to it. 
While the baptism was completed by an affusion of 
water on the head of the candidate, accompanied by 
the usual formula, ‘ I baptize thee,’ etc. The mersion 
was the ‘ Having the body washed with pure water.’ 
And the affusion was to symbolize the descent of the 
Holy spirit in the real baptism, thus ‘having the heart 
sprinkled from an evil conscience.’ Both were usu¬ 
ally performed while the candidate was in the bath, 
except in those cases w T here sickness prevented; when 
the candidate was baptized by affusion. It was thought 


148 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


that sickness had the same purifying effect upon the 
body that the washing had upon those in health. 

“ Third , I found that at a later date, several additions 
had been made to the rite. In some portions of the 
Church trine immersion was practiced; and also bap¬ 
tizing naked; under the plea that the body was to be 
baptized, and not the clothing. The newly baptized 
were also clothed in white garments, as expressive 01 
their purity; and fed on milk and honey, as new-born 
babes in Christ. Exorcism was also practiced, to 
drive away or frighten the evil spirit, which it was 
supposed haunted the candidate. This was done by 
declamation and shouting over him, while yet in the 
bath. All these additions to the original simplicity 
of the rite, were made under the plea of making it 
more impressive. 

“ Fourth , I found that these innovations arose in 
those Churches which were gathered among the Gen¬ 
tiles. These Gentile converts had been reared from 
infancy under the influence ot a pompous ritualism, 
and taught to believe in charms and incantations. 
Thus, these superstitions were transferred to these 
Gentile Churches, and exerted their baneful influence 
on them.” 

“ Really!” ejaculated Mr. Ennis, “these statements 
are new to me. The immersions were only partial, 

mere mersions, or submersions — and preparatory_ 

and the baptism only completed by affusions. 

“ Is there not some mistake in this? Do not Church 
historians tell us that the immersions were total, and 
considered the baptism itself ? ” 

“ To that inquiry I answer both yes, and no,” said 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


149 


Mr. Lovell. “There is no doubt that in the Third 
Century such was the case in some parts of the 
Church, but not in all. The trine immersions and 
baptizing naked were total. But even these were not 
considered the baptism, but the instrumental means 
of it. The baptism was the resultant effect of the 
mersion.” 

The Moderator then remarked: “The question still 
remains: ‘Which was the primitive practice, and 
which the innovation?’” 

“Yes,” said Mr. Ford, “that is the question.” 

To this inquiry Mr. Lovell replied: “In forming a 
just opinion on this subject, or properly balancing the 
probabilities of the case, I think two facts should be 
taken into consideration. 

“First, The spirit of the age, and the religious 
education and habits of the people. Would these 
favor simplicity, or show and parade? 

“ Second. Which mode is best adapted to meet the 
varying exigencies of the Church, and to set forth, 
symbolically, the nature of the true baptism? 

“ I would like to hear Mr. Coleman’s opinion upon 
the first question.” 

In answer to this call, Mr. Coleman said: 

“ In that age, both Jews and Gentiles had been 
trained from infancy, under the educating influence of 
the most pompous and imposing ceremonials. Every 
thing that could attract the eye, and work upon the 
imagination, was resorted to in order to gain and retain 
a controlling influence over the minds of the people. 
The priests, both Jewish and heathen, were dressed in 
the most showy garments, and all their religious rites 


150 ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

were professedly designed to symbolize the mysteries 
of religion, and to placate offended Deity. Among 
the Greeks and Romans, the priests of the several 
gods claimed to be in possession of truths too refined 
for the common people. These they dignified as 
mysteries. To these, only the noble, the wealthy, 
and the learned were admitted, with vows of secresy 
and scenic and symbolic representations, which were 
calculated to work powerfully upon the imagination, 
and to awaken the deepest emotions of awe and rever¬ 
ence. 

“The worship at the temples was supposed to be 
connected with these mysteries. By the ignorant, who 
composed the great body of the people, this temple 
worship was supposed to secure the w T orshiper some 
special favor, and their due observance to please the 
gods. 

“ To a people thus educated, the contrast was most 
striking between the simple plainness of the primitive 
Christian worship, and the gaudy ceremonials, pomp 
and parade of the worship in the temples of idolatry. 
Upon the Christian ministers there was no priestly 
vestments, and in their worship no parade and cere¬ 
mony. To a people only sentimentally converted to 
Christianity, this bald simplicity was repulsive. Hence 
the argument, ‘Make the Christian worship more 
attractive. Introduce such ceremonials as will affect 
the senses, and work upon the imagination. Some¬ 
thing to stir the emotions.’ 

“ All the ceremonials of the Church of Rome were 
introduced in compliance with this carnal human 
wisdom, and thus the ancient idolatry, baptized with 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEFHERD. 


151 


the names of Apostles and Saints, has resumed its 
sway, and driven the Church into the wilderness. 

“Now, to apply these facts to the question before 
us. Which mode would have the most ceremonial 
and parade in it? The simple application of water to 
the candidate meekly kneeling in a sick room, or in 
the church, or on the shore of some water course; or, 
for convenience, in the edge of it, while a cup of the 
pure liquid is poured upon his head, in token of the 
Spirit’s descent, and he is thus sealed as a servant of 
Christ; or, The change of garments, and the parade, 
as is often the case, of walking to some stream or 
body of water, and an immersion, in the gaze of a 
crowd of idle spectators, some of them thoughtless 
and irreverent, who make jests upon the appearance 
of the baptized, as they come up out of the water 
dripping, and sometimes partially strangled?” 

“I must confess,” said Mr. Ennis, “that there is 
more show and parade, and more to impress the im¬ 
agination in baptism by immersion than by sprinkling 
or pouring.” 

“ And which mode comports best with that calm, 
collected, devotional frame of mind which so import¬ 
ant a transaction should awaken?” 

“ I think it but fair to admit that baptism by affu¬ 
sion is better fitted to promote calm, collected thought 
and devotional feeling than immersion, as a gerferal 
rule; especially in the case of females, who can scarcely 
step into deep water without more or less perturba¬ 
tion of mind,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ I also feel the force of the argument, that since 
immersion has more ceremony and parade, and more 


152 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


to excite the imagination, it may have been itself an 
innovation upon the primitive mode, and with the 
other additions, introduced with the view of making 
the ordinance more impressive, I say, it is possible, that 
such may have been the case, but the facts adduced 
do not prove it.” 

“ One source of information upon this topic, which 
I think throws light on it, has generally been over¬ 
looked,” said Mr. Lovell. 

“ Suppose an artist were to make a picture of a 
baptismal scene, say the Baptism of Christ by John 
in Jordan; or that of Constantine the Great by 
Eusebius; he would make it to correspond with the 
received opinion of the people of the age in which he 
lived. And that picture would be a standing repre¬ 
sentation of the manner of these baptisms, as under¬ 
stood and believed by the people at that time.” 

“That is so,” said Mr. Ennis. Mr. Ford also 
nodded assent. 

Mr. Lovell continued: “To give force to this fact, I 
will read a few extracts from a work entitled ‘Apostolic 
Baptism,’ by Mr. C. Taylor, the editor of Calmet’s 
Dictionary of the Bible. And let me say that Mr. 
Taylor was a man of great research. 

“ Quoting from Montfancon’s preface to his work, 
Antiquite Expliquee , he says: ‘ We learn a thousand 
particulars from ancient representations, sculptures, 
etc., concerning points of classic inquiry which are 
not mentioned by the old writers.’ 

“ Bobinson introduces into his History of Baptism 
those ancient representations of that Christian ordi¬ 
nance, which he conceived might illustrate the subject. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


153 


For these speak the same language to all nations. 
They present no difficulties of construction, nor varia¬ 
tion of sense, in the particles or prepositions. The 
learned and unlearned may translate them with equal 
facility. They were vouchers for the time in which 
they were executed; and though we cannot hear the 
men of that generation viva voce, and we dare not put 
words into their lips, yet we may see their testimony, 
and judge of its relevancy to the inquiry that engages 
our attention.” 

Mr. Lovell then introduced Mr. Taylor’s work, con¬ 
taining twelve representations of ancient baptismal 
scenes. Six represented the Baptism of Christ by 
John, in Jordan. 

For the benefit of the reade\ we herewith present 
them with seven of the facsimile representations, 
prepared for this work. The number could be greatly 
increased if it were needful. But these are sufficient 
to show the opinions of the times when they were 
executed. Some of these plates were executed as 
early as the Fourth Century, and some at a later 
period. 

It is a circumstance full of significance, that while 
pictures of baptismal scenes are found at the East in 
great numbers, there is not one that represents bap¬ 
tism as taking place wholly by immersion. 

(14 Pages are here added on account of the cuts which have been distributed 
through the book.) 



D. L. Moody’s Union Church, 

Corner Chicago Avenue and La Salle Street , Chicago, 111. 


This edifice, recently completed, had more helping hands in its erection, than per¬ 
haps any other similar building in the world. After the great fire, which laid in ashes 
Moody’s Illinois Street Mission, he at once called upon the Sunday-school scholars 
of Christendom to contribute each “a brick” only, in this good cause. The res¬ 
ponse was hearty and general. In came the money, and up went the new church 
structure, which stands to-day a noble monument of child love and liberality. It is 
120x100 feet, with nine rooms below and a large auditorium and galleries above, 
seating 2.500 persons. The entire cost was about $100000. The Society has a 
membership of over 400, and a Sunday School of 1000 scholars. 




























































































































CHAPTER X. 


R. LOVELL opened the book at plate 1st, and 


handed it to the Moderator, for examination 
by himself and the other members of the 
Committee. Some ten minutes were spent in a careful 
inspection of the plates. 

After the inspection, Mr. Lovell, addressing Messrs. 
Ford and Ennis, said: 

“ What think you now? Do these plates throw any 
light upon what may be called the ancient practice? ” 

Mr. Ennis replied: “ It is evident to me that those 
plates reflect the opinions of the age in which the 
originals were made, from which these were copied. 
It is also evident that they did not understand the 
mode of baptism as I have been taught to view it; 
and if they are as ancient as they purport to be, they 
certainly throw light on the practice of those early 
times. They also sustain the view you gave, that the 
immersion, or mersion, as you call it, was not total, 
nor the whole of the rite.” 

Mr. Ford then inquired: “ Are these plates as ancient 
as they claim to he? Is it not possible that they were 
gotten up at a much later date, and palmed off as of 
great antiquity? It seems they are found only in 
Papal countries. Is not that a suspicious circum¬ 
stance? ” * 


* While the originals of these plates are found in Papal coun¬ 
tries, they were not executed by Latin artists, but by Greeks. It 


170 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEED. 


The Moderator remarked: “ As these plates profess 
to throw light upon the primitive usages, it is well to 
settle the question of their genuineness as far as pos¬ 
sible.” 

To this Mr. Lovell replied: “For one, I believe them 
to be just as ancient as they purport to be, and for the 
following reasons: 

“ 1. They have all been known to exist for several 
hundred years, and prior to the reformation under 
Luther. 

“2. They bear internal marks of genuineness. By 
comparing them with other works of art of the age 
these purport to be, we find the clothing and utensils 
the same in style. 

“ 3. The inscriptions on these plates show them to 
come from the hands of Greek artists, and not from the 
Romans, among whom they are found; and the style 
of these inscriptions is the same with the style of the 
age in which it is said they were made. 

“ 4. Forgeries are never perpetrated, unless 
promted by some motive of a selfish character; and in 
regard to these pictures, I can see no possible motive 
for deception, for there was no dispute in regard to the 
question of mode in baptism in that age. Such dis¬ 
putes were never known till after the rise of the ana¬ 
baptists in Germany, since Luther’s day. 

“ Taking all these facts into consideration, some of 

should also be remembered that the practice of the Church of 
Rome was by immersion at the time these plates were brought 
from the East, and for long years afterward. There could, there¬ 
fore, be no object gained by palming ofl a spurious article for a 
genuine one. 



ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


m 


these plates cannot be later than the fourth century. 
Those executed by Greek artists were brought to Italy 
at an early date, and were ancient at that time,* and 
were preserved as relics of the past.” 

“ Admitting their genuineness, what do they prove? ” 
said Mr. Ford. 

“Just this: They reflect the opinions of the times 
in which they were made, and of course they convey 
their idea of the circumstances and mode of Christ’s 
baptism. They were executed by Greek artists, who 
understood their mother tongue, and of course the 
Christian import of Baptizo. 

“ Then they harmonize with the statements of the 
evangelists in regard to Christ’s baptism; for they 
represent him as down in the water, and of course, as 
coming up out of it, while at the same time he was 
baptized with water while in it, the baptism being by 
affusion, and thus in harmony with the spiritual bap¬ 
tism of which it is the type. 

“ These pictures teach, that while, in some cases, 
there was a partial mersion of the body in water, at 
the time of their baptism, yet this was not deemed 
essential to it, but left to the control of circumstances.” 

“Well,” said Mr. Ford, “if any reliance can be 
placed upon these representations, I am forced to 
admit that I have been mistaken.” 

“ Do you not also see, from these representations, 
what the Greek idea of mersion was? That even in 
its primal sense, a partial envelopment, if not more 
than up to the knees, was a mersion .” 

“ I cannot affirm that such was not the case,” said 
Mr. Ford. “ But even if it was so, I now see that its 


172 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


bearings are but remotely connected with the Chris¬ 
tian thought, as well as the Christian use of the word.” 

Mr. Lovell resumed: “ These plates seem to explain 
the real mode of John’s baptism; and they also throw 
light upon the statements of John in reference to the 
spirit which descended upon Christ at the time of his 
baptism. The case is recorded in John, iii : 25: 

‘ There arose a question between some of John's dis¬ 
ciples and the Jews about purifying.’ ‘And they 
came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that 
was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest 
witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come 
to him.’ 

“ It is evident that John’s disciples supposed some 
sort of a rivalship between him and Christ; but John 
undeceived them, assuring them that Christ must 
increase, and himself decrease. That his own ministry 
was temporary, while Christ’s was abiding. Among 
the reasons which he names for this is the one recorded 
in the 31th verse: ‘He whom God hath sent, speaketh 
the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit 
‘ E/c. jlietqov , elc metrou , out of a metron or measure? A 
fair exegesis would be this: ‘My baptism is given out 
of a metron. It is limited as to quantity and dura - 
tion. But the baptism of the spirit that God gave to 
Christ was not out of a metron. It is not given in a 
limited quantity like mine; but is without limit, inex- 
haustable. Receiving such baptism, he must increase, 
while I must decrease.’ ” 

This was an exegesis that none of the Committee 
had ever heard before. It was new and striking, and 
gave beauty and force to the passage. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


173 


“If John’s baptism was, as you suppose, out of a 
measure , (a small cup holding a pint,) then I also think 
it gives additional force and meaning to John’s words,” 
said Mr. Ford. 

Mr. Lovell replied: “‘If it was,’you say. Now, 
Brother Ford, is it not highly probable that John did 
baptize out of a metron ? ” 

“ I think your construction looks exceedingly plaus¬ 
ible, if not probable,” replied Mr. Ford. 

“ In looking at all the facts developed in the course 
of these investigations, what evidence have we found 
that immersion is necessary to Christian baptism? 
Have we found any positive proof that it was prac¬ 
ticed by Christ, or his Apostles?” queried Mr. Lovell. 

“ I must confess we have not,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ Then, upon this mistaken idea, all the Baptist 
churches of the land have been organized, making 
immersion a condition of church fellowship, and 
excluding from the Lord’s Supper all who do not com¬ 
ply with this mode of ritual baptism — a condition ot 
fellowship unknown to the Apostolic churches.” 

“ I think we have carried this thing quite too far,” 
said Mr. Ford, “ and hereafter I shall pursue a more 
liberal course.” 

“ Why not say, a more Christian course,” said Mr. 
Lyman. 

“Well, then, Christian course ,” said Mr. Ford, 
with a smile, “ for, as I begin to look at it, it does 
appear rather unchristian, though I never took that 
view of it till this evening.” 

“ How far would you be from Apostolic practice, 
should you take the ground of a prominent Baptist 


174 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SIIEPHEKD. 


minister, in New York, who, in organizing an unsecta- 
rian church, made the sole test of Christian brotherhood 
and church membership, 4 A personal faith in a per¬ 
sonal Divine Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, and an 
honest effort personally to obey his command, accord¬ 
ing to the best light the disciple should have ? ’ ” 

“Not very far,” Mr. Ford replied. 

“Then you would not make immersion a test of 
communion ? ” 

“No; but I would make Baptism in some form a 
prerequsite.” 

“I will not raise an issue on that point now. But, 
I will say that forty baptisms with, or in, water, with¬ 
out the renewing of the Holy Ghost, would not entitle 
any soul to the communion.” 

“ I agree with you there,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ Then a true personal faith in Christ is the essential 
condition, and Baptism the non-essential; proper and 
useful in its place, a beautiful and impressive symbol 
of the true, essential baptism. With this higher bap¬ 
tism the disciple has a right to the Lord’s Supper,” 
said Mr. Lovell.” 

“ Brother Lovell, I fear your idea of the uses and 
import of baptism, as a rite, is incomplete.” 

“ Why do you think so? ” 

“ Is not baptism a visible test of discipleship, a 
solemn public confessing of Christ, a visible entering 
into covenant with him and his church?” 

Mr. Lovell answered: “ I should object to the word 
‘tes^’and would substitute for it the word '‘profes¬ 
sion? It is a public profession of discipleship, and 
an outward ratification of the covenant already sealed 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


175 


upon the believer, by the Holy Spirit. It is a visible 
seal of that covenant, and an outward sign and symbol 
of the inward grace, or spiritaul life, wrought by the 
Holy Spirit. On the part of the administrator, and 
of the church, it is a recognition of the fact that, in 
their opinion, the candidate is a truly penitent 
believer.” 

“ I dare not say that you are not right; but I have 
always believed and taught that it was also a symbol 
of the burial and resurrection of Christ, and that 
is the reason why I believe immersion the proper 
mode” 

“ What proof can you bring forward for that opin¬ 
ion?” inquired Mr. Lovell. 

Mr. Ford replied: “When a person is buried 
beneath the water, and then raised from it, I think it 
symbolizes the burial and resurrection of Christ.” 

“ I would never speak disrespectfully of any man’s 
opinion’s, honestly expressed, especially of a respected 
and beloved minister of Christ,” said Mr. Lovell, “ but 
I have two strong objections to that view of the 
matter. 

“ 1. Christ was not buried in the literal sense ol 
the term, and 

“ 2. His death and resurrection are simple historic 
facts, and need no symbol to make them plainer.” 

Mr. Ford expressed great astonishment in his looks, 
and finally said: 

“ Brother Lovell, you astonish me. For the first 
time in my life I hear the burial of Christ denied. 
What can you mean?” 

“I mean just what my words import: Christ was 


176 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


never definitely interred. His body was deposited 
for safe keeping in a vault, designed for a sepulchre. 
Had it been otherwise the women w T ould not have 
prepared the spices and come early to the place to 
prepare his body for definite burial. He died and rose 
again, but was never buried,* except in a metaphorical 

* A vast amount of false logic lias been employed to find, in 
the phrase, “ Buried with him in Baptism ,” an argument for a 
total immersion in ritual baptism. Mr. Lovell’s statement that 
Christ was not buried is sustained by convincing testimony, which 
we quote from ArosTOLic Baptism, by C. Taylor; he quoting 
from Parkhurst, in his Dictionary. He says: “ The word 
‘ Burial ’ includes the whole funeral apparatus of a dead body. 
To prepare a corpse for burial, as by washing, anointing, 
swathing,” etc. The Jewish ceremonies, previous to definitive 
interment, were always reckoned strict and essential parts of their 
religion. The Jews have institutions to enforce them. They 
cannot be omitted. Those who attempt it incur the greater 
excommunication. In our present inquiry, we need only consider 
two — washing and anointing. If we examine how far these 
preparatory services were applied to the dead body of Christ, we 
shall find that in the nature of things, and according to Scripture, 
he could not have been buried, definitely interred. Anointing 
was the second step. If this second step in the preparation for 
definitive interment had not passed on our Lord, how could 
he be definitively interred? If he were thus interred , how could the 
women expect to obtain his body, that they might anoint it? 
Who would disinter a body to continue the preparatory service 
proper before it was committed to the grave! What a contradic¬ 
tion in terms! That our Lord’s body was washed, is evident; 
for the Apostle John says (John xix : 40) it was “ clothed in linen 
cloths,” which was never done till after washing; and, indeed, no 
body could ever require this more than our Lord’s body, for he 
had been repeatedly baptized in his own blood — his blood had 
been poured out over him. If this preparation for intended 
embalmment was so strongly pressed for time, and therefore so 
slightly executed; if the second preparation for interment, 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


m 


sense, as expressing entire and perpetual separation 
from sin.” 

It was the first time that fact had been brought to 
the attention of any of the committee, and they 
seemed as much astonished as Mr. Ford. 

“Was Abraham Lincoln buried while placed in a 
coffin and lying in State at the several places which 
the funeral cortage visited on its way to Springfield, 
where he was finally interred?” 

The question was its own answer. Christ was never 
literally buried, and to be buried with Christ and rise 
with him is wholly spiritual. 

anointing, had not been commenced, but was postponed, and 
attempted on the third day after his being deposited in Joseph’s 
tomb, what argument can be founded on the delusive use of the 
term “ buried in our version, as importing the grave in which 
his body lay! 

Let us apply this view of the state of oar Lord’s body, on 
which the sepulchral rites were begun (but not finished), to the 
subject under consideration. How was the baptism of believers 
assimilated to this? 

I. I answer: Whoever was ritually united to Christ, was bap¬ 
tized into the profession of his death by that washing at baptism, 
which “ put away the filth of the flesh; ” by that washing which 
all considered as importiug death , which all esteemed a proof of 
death, and which all took for death , and called death. Such a 
person was conformed to what had passed on Christ’s body. He 
was not definitively interred , for Christ was not ; but he underwent 
the ritual preparation for it, as Christ underwent the mortuary 
preparation for definitive interment. The resemblance is exact 
and striking. It gives also the true import of this comparison — 
baptized into a conformity to that preparation for definitive inter- 
ment, which had passed on Christ; washed from former sins and 
pollutions, as Christ was washed from natural defilements, and 
from the effects of his sufferings. For what purpose is this 
death — that we might afterwards “walk in the newness of life.” 

12 


178 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


To this Mr. Ford replied: “If baptism is not a 
symbol of his death , burial and resurrection , then we 
have nothing to symbolize that great fact.” 

“ My answer to this,” said Mr. Lovell, “ is, that I 
fear you misapprehend the design of symbols. Those 
facts that are cognizable by the outward senses, and 
such as are susceptible of clear historic statement, can 
be made no clearer by any symbol. Christ’s death 
and resurrection are historic facts, and need no symbol 
to make them comprehensible, as I just stated. 

“It is only those vital spiritual truths, which no 
historic statement can unfold, in their deep spiritual 
import, that need symbols to illustrate and explain 
them. Thus the great truth, that all life comes from, 
and must be sustained by the Holy Spirit. That the 
souls of all unregenerate persons are utterly dead, till 
life is inbreathed, is made plain to the comprehension 
of the regenerate soul by the simple elements of water 
as a symbol. Thus water is the essential element in 
all vegetable and animal life. 

“Again, as fire is a concentration of heat force, of 
which the sun is the great fountain, sending out its 
rays everywhere to warm and vivify the earth, putting 
its elements into a condition to be aided by the life- 
giving water, and as it is by the joint action of water 
and heat that all life is sustained, so the baptism that 
Christ administers, 4 the Holy Ghost and fire,’ is thus 
set forth as a joint symbol of that great spiritual truth. 
Thus, by the chemical action of light, heat and moist¬ 
ure, the processes of which we can understand, as joint 
factors in the great miracle of vegetable and animal 
life, we have unveiled to us the still more wonderful 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


179 


miracle of begetting and sustaining spiritual life in 
the souls of men.” 

The company listened with deep interest to these 
illustrations of Mr. Lovell. 

“Beautiful! beautiful! !” ejaculated Mr. Coleman, 
to which there was an audible response in the audi¬ 
ence. 

Mr. Lovell continued: “The necessity for such a 
symbol will be seen from the following considerations: 

“ 1. Words, as the symbols of ideas, are in them¬ 
selves imperfect, and liable to be misunderstood, and 
for that reason are not a safe medium for the trans¬ 
mission of deep spiritual truths. 

“ Again, the definition of words is constantly 
changing, as they are applied to new uses from age 
to age. Therefore the language of words is not , and 
cannot be a safe repository for the great unchanging 
truths of spiritual religion. It is for this reason that 
Infinite wisdom has selected the language of things to 
illustrate and perpetuate great spiritual truths. Just 
as the pictures we have been viewing give a more 
definite idea of what was understood to be the fact in 
Christ’s baptism, so water baptism illustrates and ex¬ 
plains the mystery of the spiritual baptism, and becomes 
the unchanging symbol of that work from age to age. 
So much for ritual baptism. 

“ Now, in reference to the ordinance of the Lord’s 
Supper, since we are speaking of the language of sym¬ 
bols, it may be well for us to get the most definite view 
possible of the great truth set forth and commemo¬ 
rated in that ordinance. I have sometimes feared that 
our thoughts have gathered around the physical suffer- 


180 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

ings of Christ, and our sympathies have been excited 
at the bodily pains he bore while nailed to the cross; 
while we have overlooked the great fact that should 
be considered by us, and that should awaken in us the 
highest spiritual emotions of which we are capable. 
That great truth is Christ’s infinite unchanging love , 
for men, as sinners; a love that led to his incarnation, 
that unfolded itself in his self-forgetfulness for the 
good of others. The love that lay at the bottom, and 
was the spring of all his mental agonies, of all the sor¬ 
rows that weighed him down when ‘ his soul was made 
an offering for sin.’ It is this long-suffering love 
which we are to commemorate as one of the facts to 
be remembered. The other great fact is, that all spir¬ 
itual life, though administered by the Holy Spirit, 
must come from Ilim, and from His personal indwel¬ 
ling through the Divine Spirit. How, as bread and 
wine represent the elements of strength and joyful 
ness, so these elements set forth these spiritual facts. 
The oft-recurring commemoration of the Lord’s Sup¬ 
per is in order that we may remember that love so 
frequently that it may awaken in us the same love, and 
inspire the same spirit of self-denying and self-forgetful 
labor for others.” 

These remarks of Mr. Lovell set forth the design 
of the ordinance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 
and the reasons for them, in so clear a light that Mr. 
Ford could raise no objection to his views. But still 
Ills mind clung to the idea that baptism was also de¬ 
signed to symbolize the burial and resurrection of 
Christ. Ideas long imbedded in the mind do not 
easily give way. It is only when they are shown to 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


181 


be absolutely false that the mind consents to relinquish 
them. So Mr. Lovell continued: 

“ Brother Ford, when the Evangelist tells us that 
‘Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,’ 
do you think that was Christian baptism?” 

“ I think it could be nothing else.” 

“ Do you think his disciples understood the design 
of the rite?” 

“Most certainly; and so must the people to whom 
it was administered?” 

“ I think you are right there; but now the question 
arises, Had the disciples any thought that Christ was 
to die, be buried and rise again, while administering 
the rite. Did they not, in common with the entire 
nation, believe that the Christ was to live forever, and 
to set up a temporal kingdom on earth?” 

“ That was undoubtedly the case,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ Then of course they could not understand baptism 
as symbolizing his burial and resurrection.” 

“ Ah! Brother Lovell, I give it up. It could not 
have had any such symbolical meaning to them.” 

“We are evidently making progress toward a unity 
of opinion,” said Mr. Lovell. “We have, I think, 
reached the conviction that ritual baptism is symboli¬ 
cal of the character and work of the Holy Spirit in 
his renewing life-restoring power upon the soul. Let 
me suggest that it is also a teaching ordinance, in 
points we have not named as yet: 

“First. It teaches, by implication, that we are pol¬ 
luted , and need moral cleaning. 

“ Second. That we have no spiritual life of our- 


182 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


selves, and that such life must come, if enjoyed at all, 
through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 

“Third. That the thirst of the soul which causes its 
unrest can be satiated only by the water that Christ gives, 
when, as he said, ‘ He that shall drink of the water 
that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water 
that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water 
springing up unto everlasting life.’ It is by his per¬ 
sonal indwelling that he meets the soul’s largest wants. 

“ How beautifully the Psalmist expresses this thirst 
when he says: ‘As the hart panteth after the water 
brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O! God.’ ” 

“ That is beautiful,” said Mr. Lee, “ and it makes 
baptism a beautiful ordinance.” 

Mr. Lovell resumed: “As the result of our investi¬ 
gations thus far, we find no statement of mode, as 
enjoined by divine authority. Baptism is enjoined, 
but we are left wholly to inference in regard to the 
mode of its administration. We are therefore dealing 
wholly with inferences, and these have no more au¬ 
thority than individual consciences give them as 
determining their own convictions of duty. 

“ In these investigations we are only balancing infer¬ 
ences and 'probabilities. I am far from assuming that 
my inferences are infallibly correct. I can only say 
that they seem to me the most reasonable of any I 
have ever met with. I wish, therefore, to raise one 
question more for the consideration of the Committee. 
Since water baptism is an outward symbol of the spir¬ 
itual baptism, is it not right and proper that the mode 
of its application should symbolize and harmonize with 
the mode or manner of the spiritual baptism? ” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


183 


“ That looks reasonable,” Mr. Ford replied; and to 
this response the different members of the Committee 
nodded assent. As the reader can see, it was a com¬ 
mon sense conclusion. 

“ Then if we can ascertain the mode of the spiritual 
baptism, analogy would suggest that the water should 
agree with it in that respect.” 

“ Yes,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ Have you ever examined the passage in 1 John 
v : 8? ‘There are three that bear witness in earth; 
the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these 
three agree in one.’ ” 

“ I have not given it any critical attention,” Mr. 
Ford replied. “ Do you think it has any allusion to 
water baptism? ” 

“ I do, most certainly.” 

“I suppose you know,” rejoined Mr. Ford, “that 
certain Biblical critics think the passage to be spu¬ 
rious.” 

“ I think there is a mistake in that statement. It 
is the 7th verse that is deemed spurious, simply because 
it is not found in the oldest manuscript copies of this 
Epistle of John. 1 believe all critics agree that the 
8th verse — the one we are considering — is genuine. 

“ Allow me, however, to enter my protest to the con¬ 
clusions of such critics. It is far easier to account for 
an omission of a verse through the oversight of a 
transcriber, than to suppose a willful and knowing 
interpolation. The doctrine of the 7th verse is abun¬ 
dantly supported by other passages of the Word oi 
unquestionable genuineness. 

“ How, suppose the 8th verse was found wanting 


184 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


in the earlier versions, as you suggest; still the truth 
stated in it is fully sustained by the passages I shall 
quote in unfolding its teaching.’’ 

Mr Lovell continued: 44 To get a fair understanding 
of the passage, we need to consider the following 
points: 

“First. The spirit, and the water, and the blood 
are three witnesses. 

44 Second. They testify to some fact. 

44 Third. They agree in their testimony, first, to 
th zfact itself. Second, in their manner of bearing 
witness to it.” 

“ I see,” said Mr. Ford. Mr. Ennis gave a very sig¬ 
nificant nod, as if to say, I see it too. 

“ What, then, is the fact to which they testify? Look 
at man’s condition as a sinner, polluted, ruined, lost. 
What question of such absorbing interest as this: 

4 How can I be saved — pardoned, purified, restored to 
the Divine favor? Will God be gracious? Can he 
restore my lost purity?’ Ah! troubled soul, dismiss 
your doubts. God is love, and from its deep fountain 
there comes a remedy. Jesus, the Lamb of God, tak- 
eth away the sin of the world, and here are three wit¬ 
nesses, sent out from the King of Heaven to assure 
you of the fact. Let us call them to the stand and 
hear what they have to say. 

“First. The Spirit: 4 He shall come down upon 
them like rain upon the mown grass, as showers that 
water the earth.’ 4 Ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost not many days hence.’ 4 The Spirit itself bear- 
eth witness that we are born of God.’ 

44 All evangelical Christians, Baptists included, are 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


185 


agreed that the Holy Ghost is the efficient source of 
all spiritual life; also, that purity is the essential con¬ 
dition of life. Love and life are interchangeable terms. 
4 The Love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the 
Holy Ghost.’ It is thus the work of the Spirit to en¬ 
lighten, purify and save sinners, and to this great work 
he bears his testimony. 

44 Second. Let the Water bear its testimony. First, 
in prophecy. 4 1 will sprinkle clean water upon you, 
and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from 
all your idols will I cleanse you.’ 4 So shall he sprinkle 
many nations.’ 4 Sprinkle water of purifying upon 
them.’ Thus all through the Bible water is spoken 
of as the agent of physical purity, and as a symbol it 
bears its testimony to the fact of moral and spiritual 
purity. 

44 Third. The testimony of the Blood. 4 And by 
the law almost all things are purged with blood, and 
without the shedding of blood there is no remission.’ 
4 The blood of his Son Jesus Christ cleanseth from all 
sin.’ 4 Elect, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto 
obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.’ 
Thus the blood bears its testimony to the same fact of 
purity. 

44 In the next place, notice the statement that they 
‘agree in one,’ i. e ., in their manner of bearing 
witness. 

44 The Hood bears its testimony by springling, 
according to the passages quoted above, 4 For when 
Moses had spoken every precept to the people, accord 
ing to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, 
with water and scarlet wool, and hysop, and sprinkled 


186 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


both the book and all the people.’ ‘For, if the blood 
of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprink¬ 
ling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the 
flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, 
through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without 
spot to God, purge } ; our conscience from dead works, 
to serve the living God.’ Thus the blood bears its 
testimony by sprinkling. 

“The spirit bears its testimony in the same manner. 

‘ He shall come down like rain? ‘ I will pour out 
my spirit upon all flesh.’ ‘ While Peter yet spake 
these words the Holy Ghost fell on them.’ Peter, in 
rehearsing the conversion of Cornelius and his house¬ 
hold, says: ‘And as I began to speak, the Holy 
Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.’ 

“ From these, and like passages, it is seen that the 
Spirit bears its testimony by a ‘ 'pouring outf a ‘ fall¬ 
ing upon ,’ and a ‘ coming down like rain.’ It, there¬ 
fore, agrees with the blood in the manner of bearing 
its testimony. 

“ It only remains to see if the water bears its testi¬ 
mony in the same manner. In Isa. lii : 13 , 14 , 15 , we 
have a most graphic prophetic description of the suf¬ 
ferings of Christ, and of the glory that should follow, 
in souls redeemed and purified, among many nations. 
It reads: ‘His visage was so marred, more than any 
man, and his form more than the sons of men, so shall 
he sprinkle many nations .’ Ezekiel also narrates, 
with prophetic clearness, the same blessed work of 
purifying under the Gospel: ‘Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,’ etc. 

“ How but one of two inferences can be drawn from 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


187 


these passages. Either they contain a prophetic state¬ 
ment of water baptism under the Gospel, or the spir¬ 
itual baptism is here set forth under the symbol of 
sprinkling. In either case, the water bears its testi¬ 
mony by sprinkling, and thus the three witnesses 
agree in one method of bearing their testimony. 
Thus we have reached the conclusion that as the blood 
and the spirit bear their testimony by a 'pouring out 
and falling on , so should the water bear its testimony 
in the same way. There, Mr. Moderator, you have 
my exegesis of the passage, and the conclusions to 
which it has led me. How, what has Brother Ford 
to answer, in reply ? 55 

“ I think your exegesis quite ingenious, to say the 
least,” said Mr. Ford; “ and I must confess it has an 
air of probability. It is certain the passages you 
quote as testimony to show the agreement between the 
Spirit, the water, and the blood, do all witness for 
pouring as a scriptural mode of baptism. I had no 
idea, before this discussion, either of the amount or 
strength of testimony there is in the Bible for pouring 
as a mode of baptism. The truth is, I have heard 
some of the same arguments you have adduced urged 
before, but in a disconnected form, and the idea that 
Baptizo always mean to dip, or immerse, overbalanced 
the testimony of those passages. Since, however, you 
have demonstrated the erroneousness of Dr. Carson’s 
position, and shown the root thought of the word not 
to be action, but condition , I must confess I begin to 
have doubts about immersion being the Bible mode. 
I do not mean by this that I am entirely satisfied in 


183 ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

regard to it, but the question seems trembling in the 
balance.” 

“ There is one branch of this inquiry,” said the 
Moderator, “ which has not, as yet, been brought 
under review, and that is: What mode is best adapted 
to meet the varying conditions of men, as to climate, 
the health of the candidate, accessibility to water, etc.” 

“ Such facts,” said Mr. Ford, “should have weight in 
determining this question.” 

Mr. Lovell invited Mr. Coleman to present his 
views on the question, for hitherto lie had been mostly 
a listener to the arguments of Messrs. Ford and Lovell. 
In responding to Mr. Lovell’s request, he said: 

“Mr. Moderator, and Gentlemen of the Committee: 
I take it for granted that the Scriptural mode of bap¬ 
tism is adapted to every condition of climate, at every 
season of the year, to all places where man can live, and 
to all conditions of the body, either in sickness or health.” 

“That is very true,” Mr. Ford responded 

“ For instance, take the case of a person in the last 
stages of a wasting disease, and unable to rise from a 
sick bed. A person, under these circumstances, becom¬ 
ing a penitent believer, and desiring to take the step 
of visible separation from the world by baptism, is 
certainly entitled to the rite; but which mode is best 
adapted to his condition, affusion or immersion 

Mr. Ford replied: “I frankly confess that immer¬ 
sion would be out of the question.” 

“ Take, again, the case of those who, in high north¬ 
ern latitudes, turn to Christ during their long arctic 
winters. Immersion is out of the question, unless 
there be a delay of months, till an August sun shall 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


189 


so dispel, for a short period, the terrors of winter as to 
enable them to go into the w r ater. Does the Gospel re¬ 
quire this delay, when a bowl of water prepared for other 
family use, would be all that is required for affusion? 

“Again: In the day that the wandering sons of Ish- 
mael, the Arabs of the Great Desert, shall turn from 
Mohammed to Christ, will compliance with this Chris¬ 
tian ordinance compel them to travel a thousand miles 
to some stream or fountain, when a bowl of water 
from the desert well would symbolize the higher bap¬ 
tism already received from Christ — the only effectual 
baptism? What say you, Brother Ford?” 

“ O, I may as well yield the point at once, and own 
myself conquered. You have the arguments all on 
your side, so far as the mode is concerned. But, in 
regard to infant baptism, I shall have you there, if 
you attempt to prove that from the New Testament, 
for I, in turn, shall demand a ‘ Thus saith the Lord y 
for that practice.” 

“O, well,” Mr. Lovell replied, “we will not dispute 
about that, this evening. Our session has been 
unusually long. But, if it is thought best to make 
that question a matter of discussion for to-morrow 
evening, I am willing, in turn, to give you a chance to 
conquer me. If I am in the wrong on that point, I 
shall be most happy to have you set me right, and 
will yield as gracefully as you have done this evening.” 

“ Shall we continue the discussion to-morrow even¬ 
ing, taking up the question, who are the proper sub¬ 
jects for baptism?” said the Moderator. 

It was so decided, and the session closed with 
prayer by Lev. Mr. Coleman. 


CHAPTER XI. 


The spirit of candor, of meekness and love, 

Will ever to Christians an ornament prove: 

To say, when convinced we have erred from the truth, 

I am wiser to-day than in days of my youth, 

From the shackles of error ’tis good to be freed, 

And is, at once, noble and Christian indeed. 

S HE moon was shining brightly in the western 
sky when the audience were returning to their 
homes. The air was cool and bracing, but not 
uncomfortable. Mr. Ford was the guest of Mr. Ennis, 
and while on the way to his house they fell into con¬ 
versation respecting the discussions of the evening. 
Mr. Ennis began: 

“Now, Brother Ford, since we are alone, I want 
you to tell me, candidly, what you think of Mr. 
Lovell’s reasoning on the points brought under dis¬ 
cussion this evening?” 

“ I must confess there is more of him, and more in 
him than I had given him credit for. He seems to 
have traversed the entire ground, and made himself 
familiar with everything bearing upon it,” Mr. Ford 
replied. 

“ I know you seemed to yield the argument to him, 
but upon afterthought, what is your opinion of his 
explanations of the word laptizo , and his exegesis ot 
our strong texts for immersion? ” 

“ He has gone deeper into the subject than I have. 
There is no denying the facts he brought forward to 

(190) 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


191 


sustain his position, especially in regard to the real 
meaning of the word baptizo. I became satisfied dur¬ 
ing his explanations, and Mr. Coleman’s remarks, that 
the truth was on his side, and that we, as a denomina¬ 
tion, have always taken a false view of the meaning 
of the word. Mr. Coleman’s key to the word — 
changed condition , brought under control of does 
unlock every passage in either Classic or Hellenistic 
Greek, as also the Greek of the Hew Testament, and 
gives harmony to what would otherwise seem discord¬ 
ant, and really adds new beauty and force to the mean¬ 
ing of the word, when used to express Christian 
baptism.” 

“ Then you admit that the word does not express 
any particular action or mode of action, but the effect 
of some cause acting to produce it; or, as Mr. Cole¬ 
man said, changed condition .” 

“ Yes, 1 think that thought was made too clear for 
successful denial. That definition sweeps away the 
occasion we, as Baptists, have had for our practice of 
restricted communion. The truth is, I never liked the 
position we were forced to occupy, of claiming to be 
the only valid church of Christ. It has always given 
ns an awkward and hostile position in the eyes of other 
really Christian churches, and has been the occasion of 
much ill feeling between us and them. It was our 
definition of the word that forced us to it.” 

“ For my part,” said Mr. Ennis, “ I never before 
understood that we claimed to be the only valid church 
of Christ.” # 

“ We have never set up that claim in any formal 
manner. I have always felt like keeping it in the 


1.92. ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

shade, but it is the logical result of our doctrine that 
immersion is baptism, and baptism is immersion .” 

“ It is just as Mr. Lovell said: three-fourths of the 
Christian world reject our view of immersion as the only 
valid mode; and, I have often queried how any visible 
church unity could ever take place while we insist on 
immersion as the only baptism, because the other 
churches could not see it in that light, and so could 
not come to us, and with our views we could not go 
to them.” 

“ I have also seen the same difficulty, but my hope 
has been that more light would break out on the ques¬ 
tion that separates us, and that the other churches 
would see it, and come to us.” 

“Well,” rejoined Mr. Ennis, with a smile, “ more 
light does seem to be breaking out on the meaning of 
the word, and the real import of baptism as a Chris¬ 
tian rite, I should judge. I did not think there was 
any weight of argument on the other side of the ques¬ 
tion, till it was brought out this evening. But is it 
not strange that a word should specify an effect with¬ 
out determining its cause? ” 

“ Not at all,” Mr. Ford replied. “ All languages 
have such words. Our words hill and go are of this 
class. Kill means the act of destroying life, but it 
does not specify the agent by which the destruc¬ 
tion is wrought, nor the mode of its accomplish¬ 
ment. Yarious agents are capable of killing. A 
man may be killed by drowning, or by giving him 
a deadly poison, or by shooting him, and in vari¬ 
ous other ways. It is a generic instead of a specific 
term. So, also, is the word go. If I say to my 



ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


193 


son: i I wish you to go to town.’ I give him a generic 
command. lie can walk, or ride, and he obeys. It 
he goes to-day or to-morrow, he equally obeys me. 
But suppose I say to him: ‘I wish you to ride to 
town to-day ,’ my request is specific, both as to the 
mode and the time. He does not fulfill my request 
if he walks, nor if he puts it off till to-morrow. Our 
mistake has been that we have regarded IcCptzio as a 
specific instead of a generic term. This mistake has 
caused all the trouble.” 

“ Then, if the thing is done contemplated in the 
command, the essential requirement is met, and the 
method or mode of doing it is of secondary import¬ 
ance. Any mode, therefore, that accomplishes the 
result is valid.” 

“ I do not see how we can reach any other conclu¬ 
sion.” 

“ Then, if I understand the matter, neither sprink¬ 
ling, pouring nor immersion are baptism; but either 
may be employed as agents in baptism. I do not see 
how we can avoid that conclusion.” 

“ I see it now; I have often immersed myself when 
with other boys I have bathed in the river. I have 
often been out in a storm while the rain was first 
sprinkled, and then poured upon me, till I was wet 
through; and while in a classical sense of the word I 
was baptized as being brought into a condition of wet¬ 
ness, it was not baptism in the Christian sense of that 
term.” 

“ That is the solid truth,” said Mr. Ford. 

“Then one of the main bars to uniting with these 
13 


194 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


brethren in Christian fellowship, and Church relation 
is at once removed.” 

“ Under the circumstances I advise you to do so.” 

“But, oh! that horrid infant baptism. IIow can I 
witness such a misapplication of the rite?” said Mr. 
Ennis, and he shrugged his shoulders at the repulsive¬ 
ness of the thought. 

“But you need not have your own children bap¬ 
tized, nor need you sanction it in others. If others 
think it their duty to have their children baptized, and 
act accordingly, you are not to blame. Let them an¬ 
swer to the Master. And then, too, that question is 
yet to come up. It may be we shall bring them over 
to our views, for I am going to demand what I am 
confident they cannot produce, a ‘thussaith the Lord' 
for it. I disapprove of ‘ baby baptism ’ as much as 
you do; but then it is manly and Christian to be open 
to conviction. We think we are right on that ques¬ 
tion, but it won’t do to be dogmatic. They think their 
views and practice to accord with the teachings of the 
word. If they did not, they would abandon it. It is 
barely possible we are in the wrong. Let us wait and 
see.” 

The two men walked on in silence for a few moments, 
when a new thought came to Mr. Ennis, as he mentally 
reviewed Mr. Lovell’s argument in its application to 
the work of the Holy Spirit, in changing the moral 
condition of the soul from a state of sin and pollution to 
a life of holiness and spiritual purity. He finally said: 

“ I was deeply impressed with the significance of 
the word baptizo , in its application to the rite, as ex¬ 
pressing that divine change wrought in the soul by 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


195 


the Holy Spirit, in which all its voluntary powers and 
affections are brought under the direction and control 
of a new life. Mr. Lovell also said that one of the mean¬ 
ings of bapto was to dye , to color; that this coloring 
was the effect of dipping the articles to be dyed into 
the coloring fluid, and that the result was a changed 
condition of the articles dyed, etc. He also said bapto 
was the root of baptizo, so that after all baptizo does 
borrow the thought of changed condition from its 
root.” 

“ In that respect it is beautiful and appropriate,” 
said Mr. Ford. “ I have often wondered why it was 
that baptizo was so often found in connection with 
such words as katharizo, to purify , rantizo , to sprin¬ 
kle. Nipto , louo and pluno expressing various kinds 
of washing. But I now see that these are specific 
terms, and show the character of the baptism and the 
methods employed to accomplish it. Thus there was 
a katherismos baptism, a purifying baptism, and it 
might be expressed by the word nipto , to wash one’s 
hands, or pluno , to wash clean , especially the clothes; 
or by louo , to wash the body , as in a bath.” 

“ I think you came to the conclusion that baptism is 
not a symbol of the burial and resurrection of Christ.” 

“ It is true that I have always held that idea fill to¬ 
night; but I now see that in that, too, we have been mis¬ 
taken. There is nothing to prove it, except the supposed 
resemblance between a person buried under water, in 
the act of immersion, and then raised up again out of 
it. I was also satisfied that the disciples who prac¬ 
ticed baptism at Christ’s command, during his per¬ 
sonal ministry, did not understand the ordinance as 


196 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


typifying his burial and resurrection, from the fact 
that they had no thought that he was to die. I also 
see that his death and resurrection are historic facts, 
that can be plainly understood, without any symbols 
to illustrate them.” 

“ What do you think of Mr. Lovell’s argument for 
pouring, as a mode of baptism?” 

“ I cannot deny that there is a deal of force in that 
argument, and as I had no fact that I could oppose to 
it, I was obliged, as a candid man, to yield to it. It 
is a fact too evident to deny, that pouring is more in 
harmony with the spiritual baptism that comes by a 
'pouring out , and is also better adapted to all the cir¬ 
cumstances of climate , condition of bodily health , and 
convenience. I also now see that it is more favorable 
to that collectedness of thought and calm devotional 
feeling so needful at such a time.” 

“Well, really, an entire revolution has taken place 
in your views of baptism,” said Mr. Ennis. 

“That is true; I confess myself wiser this evening 
than I was in the morning. When a man sees that he 
has been wrong, it is the part of candor and honesty 
frankly to confess it.” 

This open, frank avowal of his change of views had 
a very marked effect on Mr. Ennis. Mr. Lovell’s argu¬ 
ments had had the same effect upon him, but not being 
of so independent a turn of mind, he naturally looked 
to see how they affected others. Had Mr. Ford pro¬ 
nounced Mr. Lovell’s arguments unsound, or incon¬ 
clusive, he would have dismissed them at once, and 
still clung to his old opinions. As it was, he avowed 
his concurrence in Mr. Ford’s opinion. 


CHAPTER XII. 


S T the appointed hour the next evening, the Com¬ 
mittee met. The weather was fine, the roads 
were dry and hard, and the moon was shining, 
several degrees east of the zenith. A larger number 
of spectators were out than on the previous evening, 
for the fact of the discussion was noised abroad, and 
some had come several miles to see and hear. 

The Moderator, requested Rev. Mr. Coleman to open 
the exercises with reading the Scriptures and prayer. 

Providence seemed to direct Mr. Coleman to the 
3d Chapter of Gallatians, which, as the reader will 
recollect, treats on the relation between the Christian 
dispensation and the Abrahamic covenant; after which 
he offered a fervent prayer for the enlightenment and 
guiding Spirit of God upon those who should lead in 
the inquiry. 

After the prayer, the Moderator prefaced the dis- 
cusion with the following remarks: 

“ Dear Friends and Neighbors, Brethern and Mem¬ 
bers of the Committee: The question for inquiry and 
discussion this evening is: Who are proper subjects 
for baptism? Brothers Ennis and Lovell are to lead 
in the inquiry, assisted by Rev. Brothers Ford and 
Coleman. The question is an important one, import¬ 
ant in its bearings upon the purity and welfare of the 
church we hope to form, and also upon our children. 
Let us divest our minds of party bias, as far as possi- 
( 197 ) 


198 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


ble, and all prejudices and prepossessions, and be only 
anxious to know the truth. Brother Coleman has led 
us in prayer for divine help and enlightenment, let 
us continue to desire divine aid.” 

Mr. Lovell then arose and said: “ Mr. Moderator 
and Brethern of the Committee. I wish briefly to 
state the points upon which I suppose we are agreed, 
and also those upon which, perhaps we differ. I do 
this that we may waste no time on points already set¬ 
tled, and that the inquiry may be confined to points 
of disagreement. 

“I suppose we agree that all adult believers are 
entitled to baptism, and that every child, as soon as he 
gives evidence that he loves and trusts the Savior, is 
also entitled to it.” 

“ Yes,” said Mr. Ford, “ we are agreed so far.” 

“ But, I thing we owe something to our children, 
before they are old enough to exercise an intelligent 
personal faith, and I presume Brother Ford will agree 
with me that we should do all we can, by prayer, ex¬ 
ample, careful training, and a Christian life, to lead 
them to love and trust the Savior, at the earliest 
possible age.” 

“ There I am with you again,” Mr. Ford replied. 

“ The only question of difference, then, is this: Are 
the relations of children, to their parents and to Christ, 
such as to justify their baptism, while yet in infancy? 
I think they are.” 

Mr. Ford replied: “ I think they are not.” 

“ What does the Bible teach on this question, and 
what was the practice of the Apostles, and the Apos¬ 
tolic Churches? If the Bible teaches infant baptism, 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEKD. 


199 


and if it can be shown, as a historic fact, that the cus¬ 
tom of baptizing children, that prevailed in the second 
and third centuries, came from the Apostles, and was 
practiced by their direction, then that should settle 
the question.” 

u That statement is fair and just,” Mr. Ford replied, 
(< aj id now I want to turn inquisitor, and ask Brother 
Lovell where, in the Bible, he finds infant baptism?” 

A smile passed over Mr. Lovell’s face, as he rejoined: 
u Is it possible that a man of your age, and after the 
study of the Bible lor years, has never yet found infant 
baptism? ” 

“ I protest, upon my honor I have not,” said he, 
“and now, Brother Lovell, do tell us where it can be 
found.” 

“ It is the very next verse after close communion.” 

The whole audience, including the Committee, burst 
into uproarous laughter, but Mr. Ford seemed to enjoy 
the repartee the best of any. This put the audience 
into good humor, when Mr. Ford arose and said: 

“ Dear Brethern and Friends: Before we proceed 
in this inquiry, I wish to make a confession that may 
surprise you. I here and now confess that the discus¬ 
sion of last evening has led me to an entire change of 
views on the mode of baptism.” 

The audience were taken by surprise, but after the 
announcement, Mr. Ford stood higher in the eyes of 
the people, and of the Committee, than before. 

It was now Mr. Ennis’ turn, and the Committee 
were equally surprised and delighted when that gen¬ 
tleman arose and announced his entire concurrence in 
the statements of Brother Ford. His views, too, were 




200 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


changed, as to mode, and so far as that was concerned, 
there was no bar to his uniting with the others in a 
church covenant. 

“ And now,” said Mr. Ennis, u I hope the result of 
this evening’s discussion will remove the last obstacle 
to complete harmony of opinion among us. Not that 
I would decline to unite with you, even if we do not 
succeed in harmonizing our views upon the subject of 
this evening’s inquiry.” 

The Moderator then called up the question, and said: 
“ Since brethern Ford and Ennis have objections to 
infant baptism, it will be proper for them to state the 
grounds ot their objections.” 

Mr. Ford arose and said: “ I have several objections, 
which I will state in detail: 

“ 1. I can find no command in the New Testament 
to baptize children, nor any examples of infant 
baptism. 

“ 2. I find nothing but believers’ baptism. Jesus said, 
‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’ 
Infants cannot believe, and therefore should not be 
baptized. 

^“3. I am opposed to it because it is useless . What 
good can it do to baptize an unconscious babe? 

“ 4. It deprives the child of its own choice in going 
forward upon profession of its own faith; and, 

u 5. I am opposed to it, because I believe it to be a 
relic of popery.” 

“Well! well!” said Mr. Lovell, while a smile suf¬ 
fused his face, “Brother Ford! Brother Ford! your 
faith is rather of the negative order. Allow me to 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


201 


inquire if infant baptism is anywhere forbidden in the 
Scripture?” 

“ I do not know that it is, in express terms, but I 
think it is by implication.” 

“ From wdiat particular fact, stated in the Scriptures, 
do you draw your inference?” 

“The fact of believers’ baptism; children cannot 
believe, and therefore should not be baptized.” 

“So you think infants are unbelievers?” 

“ Why,not exactly that; but they are not believers.” 
Mr. Ford replied. 

“ So you believe in infant damnation? ” 

“ No; by no means,” Mr. Ford replied rather 
indignantly. 

“ Does not Jesus say, ‘ He that believeth not shall 
be damned ’? If it is true that infants are not believ¬ 
ers, then their damnation follows as a consequence.” 

“ Being incapable of faith, should they die in infancy, 
they will be saved without it,” said Mr. Ford. 

Mr. Lovell replied: “ If they can be saved without 
faith, I see nothing to hinder their being baptized 
without it. But if your position is true, that infants 
are not believers, should they die in infancy their dam¬ 
nation is inevitable, or Jesus spake falsely. Now, as 
I do not believe that infants are damned, and as I do 
believe that Jesus uttered infallible truth, I am com¬ 
pelled to reject your position. I now assert, that in 
the economy of grace, all infants are regarded and 
treated as believers.” 

“ I will not say that I am right, but I do doubt the 
correctness of your position,” Mr. Ford replied. 


202 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“Will the testimony of Jesus be authority with 
you?” 

“ Certainly,” he replied. 

Taking the Bible, Mr. Lovell turned to Matth. xviii : 
5, 6, and read: “ Whoso shall receive one such little 
child in my name receiveth me; but whoso shall offend 
one of these little ones, which believe in me, it were 
better that a millstone were hanged about his neck, 
and he drowned in the depth of the sea.” 

Mr. Ennis had never had his attention called to 
that passage before, and when the words “ believe in 
me ” were read, a new light dawned on his mind. 
“ Infants are called believers,” he repeated to himself. 

“Brother Lovell,” Mr. Ford interposed, “do you 
think that Jesus spake that of real infants?” 

“ I do, most certainly.” 

“ Well, I have always thought that when Jesus spake 
those words, he made the little child the symbol of 
young believers.” 

“ I am aware that others besides yourself have taken 
that view of this passage; but I object to it for two 
reasons: First, all the facts in the case forbid such a 
construction. An infant is placed in the midst, and a 
caution given by the Master against offending him. 
You know, Brother Ford, that the original reads cause 
to offend , i. e., place a stumbling block in his way; as 
if he had said, Their young lives are under your influ¬ 
ence. If you, by your lives , temper and spirit , mis¬ 
lead them, and cause them to offend , a terrible guilt 
will rest upon you. It were better that a millstone 
were hanged about your neck than for you to cause 
them to sin. 




irwirw* • 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 203 

“ In the second place, Jesus declares that children 
have the characteristics that belong to believers; for 
he savs, 4 Except ye be converted, and become as little 
children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of 
Heaven.” The inference you draw from that passage 
has, I think, grown out of a mistake as to the real 
import of the word 4 believe.’ ” 

“ But how can a little child believe? Christianity 
is a system of doctrinal truths, so deep and profound 
that the mind of a seraph can scarcely grasp them in, 
their fullness,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ That confirms my word,” said Mr. Lovell. 44 You 
make faith a speculation of the mind , which you know 
is not saving. In that sense the devils believe and 
tremble. Paul tells us that 4 With the heart man be¬ 
lieve th unto righteousness.’ Saving faith is therefore 
an exercise of the heart, rather than of the intellect. 
How since faith, in this sense, brings the soul into 
harmony with God, and changes its attitude from 
rebellion to that of filial obedience, it becomes the 
synonym of a soul in harmony with God. Since, there¬ 
fore, children in infancy do sustain this relation, Jesus- 
calls them 4 believers.’ ” 

44 Are not infants sinful , and do they not need regen¬ 
eration to fit them for Heaven?” said Mr. Ford. 

44 Do you think that children dying in infancy will 
be lost?” 

44 O! no; I think that if a child dies in infancy it 
will be regenerated.” 

44 What, without faith? ” 

44 Yes; of his own free grace.” 

44 Well, Brother Ford, if He can regenerate the heart 


204 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


of the dying infant, what stands in the way of the 
regeneration of the living infant?” 

“ I cannot deny the truthfulness of your conclusion. 
There is nothing to prevent the work in the one case 
more than the other,” Mr. Ford answered. 

“Now, Brother Ford, since water baptism is the 
symbol of the work of regeneration in the heart, and 
since God is able to regenerate the heart of an infant, 
at the instance of the prayer of parental faith, even 
before the child can have any conception of sin or 
grace, will you. tell me why an infant may not receive 
the sign of the things signified?” 

“ Beally, there can be no objection, provided we can 
be assured that the infant is thus regenerated.” 

“After all, Brother Ford, there is a deal of mist 
thrown around this subject, of the relation of the in¬ 
fant to the moral government of God. Justification 
by faith presupposes a condition of sin and rebellion. 
This can be true of none till they have come to years 
of accountability. No child is a sinner till it actually 
sins. Till then it is not condemned, and needs no 
pardon. If the child has not sinned, what is there to 
bar it from Heaven. The inherent weakness and de¬ 
pravity of its nature is not its fault, butdts misfortune. 
Though that depravity, unchecked, will lead to sin, it 
is not of itself sin. If you say the child is represen¬ 
tatively guilty in Adam, then it is representatively 
justified in Christ. His atoning work, according to 
the etymology of the word, brings the child into at- 
one-ment with God, and that relation can be disturbed 
only by actual sin on the part of the child. Can you 
deny the truth of this statement? ” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


205 


Mr. Ford answered: “ Your statement is too clear 
to admit of cavil. I think yon have truthfully set 
forth the relation of the child to the moral government 
of God.” 

“ But what of the child’s relation to the renewing 
operation of the Holy Spirit. Let me carry this 
thought a little further,” said Mr. Lovell. “ There is 
a time in the life of every child, coming to years of 
accountability, when it puts forth its first accountable 
act, and that act will be one of loving obedience to God, 
or of sinful rebellion. How, since 4 Love is the fulfilling 
of the Law,’ that love must pre-exist in the heart of 
the child as a condition of obedience; but love itself is 
an outgrowth of a regenerate heart. Therefore, one 
of two things must be true: Either the heart must be 
regenerated, or sin is the unavoidable result. The 
power and disposition to avoid sin are the results of 
grace, and therefore it exists in the heart of the child 

o ' 

before it reaches the years of accountability, and thus 
the child is a believer, or stands in the same relation 
to Christ that the adult believer does. It has no per¬ 
sonal sin or holiness, but is in that impressible condi¬ 
tion by which the moral character or soul life of its 
parents or guardian will be stamped upon it. If the 
parents are living sinful lives, their influence will lead 
it into sin.” 

This statement was so undeniable that it made a 
deep impression upon the minds of all present. It 
was a new thought to Mr. Ennis, and indeed to most 
of the Committee, and carried with it a deepening 
sense of parental responsibility. It is a fact, that can¬ 
not be too carefully pondered, that true Christian love 


206 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


in the hearts of parents is a moral magnetic force, in 
its nature adapted to awaken love in the heart of the 
child. Christ formed in the heart of the parent is the 
fountain and source of this love. Christ, therefore, 
as an indwelling Savior, becomes, through the parents, 
a renewing, regenerating power in the child. Love 
beaming out of the eye, breathing forth in the voice, 
and awakening a jealous guardianship over the spir¬ 
itual well-being of the child, is the golden chain that 
shall draw it tb Christ. Oh! how supremely beautiful 
and all conquering is love. It is essentially Divine. 

“ What do you understand by receiving children in 
the name of Christ?” inquired Mr. Ennis, addressing 
Mr. Lovell. 

“ I would like to have Brother Ford answer that 
question.” 

“ I don’t think it means to baptize them and take 
them into the Church,” Mr. Ford replied. 

“ Will Brother Ford tell us what it does mean, for 
Jesus said: 4 Whoso shall receive one such little child 
in my name, receiveth me.’ ” 

“It means — well — I do not know exactly what it 
■does mean. It don’t mean to baptize them and take 
them into the church.” 

“Jesus declares them believers,” said Mr. Lovell. 
•“Of course they are infant believers, and as such 
.should be regarded as lambs of the spiritual flock. 
Now, Brother Ford, how long must a child be a 
believer before it is entitled to baptism, and a home in 
the church?” 

“ -As to that,” said Mr. Ford, “if I really thought a 
child a believer, I should think it my duty to baptize 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


207 


it immediately, and take it under watch and care of 
the church.” 

“The question returns again: What did Jesus 
mean when he said: ‘ Whoso shall receive one such 
little child, receiveth me’? He certainly refers to 
some significant act. It was to be a religious act, and 
a church act. And now, Brother Ford, since you 
cannot tell what it is, let me say that I think I can. It 
is to receive the child into the bosom of the church; 
give it its sheltering care; regard and treat it as 
Christ’s lamb, and bring the power of a sanctified 
church life to bear upon it, and train it in the nurture 
of the Lord.” 

“ Then you think that to receive a child in the name 
of Christ, in the sense he meant to teach, is to baptize 
it and admit it into the church?” said Mr. Ennis. 

“ I believe it means to receive the child as the 
ward of the church, and as an infant member of the 
General Catholic Church. As belonging to Christ, I 
think it our duty to put his mark on our children, and 
then to train them, from infancy, to believe and feel 
that they belong to him.” 

Mr. Ennis gave, a very significant nod, as though 
the subject was assuming a new shape, in his mind. 

“ Yes,” Mr. Lovell resumed, “ since baptism is the 
seal of the covenant, and an external mark that we 
belong to Christ, as his sheep , I would baptize them 
and take them under the sheltering care of the church; 
not because they are, at the time, capable of under¬ 
standing the nature of covenant obligations, but 
because they should be placed in a position of cov¬ 
enant relation , so that as soon and as fast as they are 


208 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


capable of understanding these obligations, they may 
feel that they are already upon them.” 

“ So, then, you really believe in infant church mem¬ 
bership?” Mr. Ford remarked. 

“ Yes, in the sense I have just stated it, I most cer¬ 
tainly do,” Mr. Lovell answered. 

“ How long will it be before you will have the 
church filled with dead and unconverted members? 
That has always been the result of infant church mem¬ 
bership,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ Do you think that to be a necessary result? ” 

“ I think it to be the natural consequence of infant 
baptism.” 

“Do you think Congregational, Presbyterian and 
Methodist churches any more dead and formal than 
Baptist churches? ” inquired Mr. Lovell. 

“ I cannot say that I do,” he answered. 

“And yet you are aware that they all believe in and 
practice infant baptism. But you see the consequences 
you speak of do not follow. Allow me to suggest 
that your prejudices may have blinded you to the real 
facts in the case. These prejudices have probably 
arisen from seeing the abuse and perversion of the rite 
in those churches which have lost what vital religion 
they may once have had. The truth is, we do not 
believe that either infant or adult baptism initiates 
into any local or denominational church organization. 
It only brings the person baptized into a general cove¬ 
nant relation to Christ and his people, or the general 
body of believers. When, therefore, either an infant 
or adult is baptized, it is, upon the part of. the minis¬ 
ter and of the church, a public acknowledgment that 


Fig. 4. — Baptism of a Heathen King and Queen. 



This picture represents the King and Queen in a family bath, 
partly mersed, and a man in a military habit is seen pouring 
water on them from a vase or deep pitcher. In the original 
attendants are around them witnessing the administration of the 
ordinance. From their dresses they are evidently Longobardi, 
who received Christianity through the influence of Tlieolinda 
A. D. 591. It is the baptism of Argilulfus the King, and Theo- 
linda the Queen of the Longobardi, who occupied Beneventum 
in the sixth century. (See Chapters IX and X.) 






































. 


















































































* 


















• ' 



















































































ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


209 


in tlieir regard the person so baptized really belongs to 
Christ. And the person so baptized, if an adult, does 
by that act publicly enter into covenant to take Christ 
as his Kedeemer, renouncing the world, the flesh and 
the devil. If an infant, the parents enter into the 
same covenant, in its name and behalf, and pledge, on 
their part, to train it up for Christ.” 

“ But,” said Mr. Ford, “ I cannot see what good it 
can do an unconscious babe to sprinkle a little water 
in its face. It certainly has no knowledge of what it 
means.” 

“ Will Brother Ford please inform us what good it 
does to baptize an adult? Does it wash away his sin, 
or confer any real holiness upon him? ” 

Mr. Ford answered: “As to that, the good is only 
a relative one. It is an act of obedience to God, and 
a solemn profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” 

Mr. Lovell inquired: “ Is there no higher end to be 
attained, and is baptism only a test of fealty to 
Christ?” 

“ O certainly,” he answered. “ As you say, it places 
us in a visible covenant relation with Christ, and in 
endearing relation to his people, and all the restraints 
and promises of that covenant bear upon us for our 
good.” 

“Beautiful and true,” ejacutated Mr. Lovell, and 
then, turning to the committee, said: “Brother Ford 
has really answered his own question, by stating that 
the benefit of baptism is only a relative good — not a 
good growing out of baptism as an external right, but 
one growing out of the covenant relation of which 
baptism is the seal. The good it does the adult is 
14 


210 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


precisely the good it does the infant. It is the good 
of a divine restraint from sin, and of sweet encour¬ 
agement in the path of holy obedience. A restraint 
and encouragement drawn from the consideration ot 
the vows of God upon us. And, therefore, it is a 
good running through our entire pilgrimage.” 

“That is all well enough,” Mr. Ford answered, “ for 
those who are old enough to understand covenant 
obligations, but what can an infant know of covenant 
obligations? ” 

Mr. Lovell answered: “Your objection lies with 
equal force against infant circumcision, and your 
reasoning arraigns the wisdom of God in command¬ 
ing Abraham to circumcise his offspring. ~No one who 
has examined the strict parallelism there is between 
baptism and circumcision can fail to see that the fun¬ 
damental idea of the one is the same as the other. 
What good did it do to circumcise Abraham’s children? 
It was a bloody right. Why not spare the infant the 
pain of the circumcising knife? It was God’s com¬ 
mand. Paul meets this objection in regard to circum¬ 
cision, and answers, ‘Much every way;' and now in 
the same strain, I will answer, 6 Much every way,’ but 
chiefly in that brings the baptized infant into a visi¬ 
ble covenant relation to its God, and into an acknowl¬ 
edged relation to the general church; and if the 
parents, and the minister, and the church, do their 
duty in teaching and training the child, in time to 
come, unfolding the design of the rite, and the nature 
of the covenant its parents entered into in its behalf, 
it will continue to exert a saving influence in every 
period of its subsequent life; and it shall feel and 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


211 


know that its .Redeemer, and the church, and the min¬ 
ister, as well as its parents, loved it when it was an 
unconeious babe; and that fact will be a tie to bind it 
in everlasting love and obedience to God.” 

Mr. Ford sat in a thoughtful attitude for a few mo¬ 
ments, and then, as if aroused, said: 

u If baptized children were properly taught , and 
from infancy brought under the life-power of truly 
sanctified hearts, I am inclined to think that the fact 
of their baptism would have the same restraining 
power, on the one hand, and of holy encouragement, 
on the other, that it does on older persons.” 

“That is precisely what the Gospel contemplates, 
and just what parental duty enjoins,” said Mr. Lovell. 

“ But I have seen so many thoughtless parents pre¬ 
sent their children for baptism, relying on some mys¬ 
terious grace to accompany the act, who neither repent 
of their own sins, nor teach their children to repent 
of theirs, that I have been thoroughly disgusted with 
the whole thing. Do you wonder that I am opposed 
to such profination of the ordinance?” 

“ There is no doubt that such facts, as you state, are 
too true,” Mr. Lovell-replied. “But are we to judge 
of a Gospel ordinance, by the abuse of it, in the hands 
of sinful men? Should we not rather look at the 
benefits it is designed to confer, and is capable of 
working out when used according to the will of God?” 

Mr. Ennis, and indeed the whole committee, had 
followed, with close attention, this argument of Mr. 
Lovell’s, and it was working conviction of its truth 
upon their minds, so that when Mr. Ford said: 


212 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEFHERD. 


“ There is force in your reasoning,” they nodded a very 
emphatic assent to his statement. 

Mr. Lovell resumed: “ I lay it down as an undenia¬ 
ble truth, that it is the duty of all parents not only to 
give themselves, but their children to God; and also to 
use for themselves, but equally so for their children, 
all the helps that the Gospel brings within their 
reach.” 

“ There is no denying your statements,” said Mr. 
Ford. 

“ Is the neglect of one branch of duty a justifica¬ 
tion for neglecting another, and do not the words ol 
the Master apply in this case: ‘ These ought ye to 
have done, and not to leave the others undone 5 ? ” said 
Mr. Lovell. 

“ I have seen so many wicked persons who have 
been baptized in infancy, that it seems to me better 
not to administer it till they give evidence that they 
are Christians.” 

u Have you not seen those who were baptized upon 
the profession of their faith, afterwards set at naught 
their covenant vows, and become openly wicked ? ” said 
Mr. Lovell. 

“ I regret to say I have seen too many who have 
done so.” 

“ Hoes their unfaithfulness release them from the 
obligations of their covenant vows? Or would you 
withhold baptism from believing men because some 
had proved unfaithful who had taken its obligations 
upon themselves? 55 

Mr. Ford felt the force of this reasoning, and frankly 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


213 


said: “You are right, Brother Lovell. My objection 
will not abide the test of your reasoning.” 

Some of the objections raised by Mr. Ford were 
thus answered, and found to arise more from the abuse 
of the ordinance than from any impropriety in baptiz¬ 
ing children. So Mr. Lovell replied: 

“Brother Ford, there are several passages in the 
New Testament where the sentences, ‘the kingdom of 
heaven ’ and 4 the kingdom of God 5 are used. Thus, 
in Matth. iii: 2, John says, 4 Kepent, for the kingdom 
of God is at hand.’ And again, Jesus says, Matth. vi: 
35, ‘But seek ye first the kingdom of Godf and 
again, 4 The kingdom of heaven is like unto three mea¬ 
sures of meal.’ Now, I wish you to give the committee 
and the audience the real meaning of that term, or 
what logicians would call the usus loguandi of the 
phrase, 4 the kingdom of heaven ’ and 4 the kingdom of 
God: ” 

Mr. Ford replied: “I do not know what use you 
wish to make of these phrases ; but, in my opinion, 
they are expressive of the same thought, and I under¬ 
stand by them 4 the kingdom of Christ ,’ the kingdom 
prophecied of by Daniel, ii : 44, 4 In those days shall 
the God of heaven set up a kingdom.’ This kingdom 
of Christ is the kingdom of grace, and it embraces all 
who take Christ as their king, and His Gospel as their 
law. Paul also alludes to it in the expression, 4 Where¬ 
fore, we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved,’ 
etc.” ‘ » 

44 1 think your exegesis of the phrase a fair and 
truthful one,” said Mr. Lovell. 44 But is not the rela¬ 
tion that Christ sustains to His people, as Lawgiver 


214 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


and King, a covenant relation? and is not baptism the 
external seal of that covenant?” 

“That is the view I take of it,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ That being the case,” Mr. Lovell continued, “ the 
usus loquandi is the same wherever the phrase 
occurs” 

“ I think you are correct,” he replied. 

Mr. Lovell then took the Bible, and, turning to Luke 
xviii : 15,16, 17, read : “ And they brought unto him 
also infants, that he would touch them ; but when his 
disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called 
them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come 
unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the king¬ 
dom of God . Yerily, verily, I say unto you, whoso¬ 
ever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little 
child, shall in no wise enter therein.” “ Now, Mr. 
Moderator, I leave it to you and the committee, and 
even to Brother Ford himself, to say if it is not evi¬ 
dent from this passage that children sustain the same 
relation to Christ that true believers do, and that they 
are members of his spiritual kingdom.” 

“ That may be true ; but it does not follow that 
they are to be baptized,” Mr. Ford interposed. “Jesus 
only put his hands on them and blessed them.” 

“ But was not that enough ? Would not that touch 
bring the blessing of salvation to those infants who 
received it? ” 

“ I think so,” said Mr. Ennis. 

Mr. Lovtll continued: “We have never contended 
that Jesus baptized these infants with water; but did 
not that laying on of the Savior’s hands confer the 
blessing that is symbolized by water baptism?” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


215 


“ I do not know what the blessing could be unless it 
was the regeneration of their hearts,” said Mr. Ennis. 

“ 'Now, as all the acts of Christ are full of moral 
significance, I contend that this was an instance in 
which he taught by action, as he also taught by 
action, the great lesson of humility and brotherly 
helpfulness, when he girded himself and took a towel, 
and washed his disciples’ feet. The lesson that Jesus 
taught in this blessing of children was this: that chil¬ 
dren should be regarded and treated as members of 
the household of faith, and that nothing shall be 
withheld that shall aid in their right moral and spir¬ 
itual training.” 

“ I think no one will dispute your statement,” said 
Mr. Ford. “Everything that can be done to help 
children to develop a true Christian life and character, 
should be done.” 

Mr. Lovell rejoined: “Solomon says, ‘Train up a 
child in the way he should go, and when he is old (i. e. 
come to manhood) he will not depart from it.’ Now, 
if baptism, by bringing the adult Christian into visible 
covenant relation to Christ and His Church, becomes 
a means of edification, encouragement and holy re¬ 
straint, then for the same reason children should be 
placed in the same covenant relation with their 
parents, that those considerations may act upon them 
from infancy. This passage from Luke, xviii: 15, 16, 
IT, when rightly understood, I think is an explicit 
warrant for infant baptism.” 

This process of reasoning was so in harmony with, 
and explanatory of these several passages, that Mr. 


216 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


Ford attempted no reply. There was no good ground 
for one. He might raise false issues, but could bring 
no rebutting testimony. 

The committee then took a short recess. 


CHAPTER XIII. 


& T the expiration of the time, the meeting was 
called to order, and Mr. Lovell announced that 
Rev. Mr. Coleman would take his place in the 
further discussion of the question. 

Mr. Coleman arose and said, that he doubted the 
propriety of transferring the discussion from Brother 
Lovell to himself. Mr. Lovell seemed to be at home 
in the discussion, and, to his mind, had conducted it 
so very candidly and judiciously, that he feared he 
could not fill his place. But, yielding to the pressure, he 
began the discussion by saying: 

“Dear Brethren: The question is one of such 
practical importance to the peace and harmony that 
should subsist among Christians, and so connected with 
the highest spiritual interests of the children and the 
church, that it demands the most careful consideration. 
"We need, therefore, to divest our minds of all prejudice 
on either side, and be only anxious to know the exact 
truth , and the whole truth , in this matter; and it is 
with this view only that I shall, in discussing this 
question, present you with the best light I have on the 
subject, and I will hold myself open to any further 
light that either Brothers Ford or Ennis can give. I 
am aware that they only assume the negative, doubt¬ 
ing the propriety and scripturalness of baptizing 
infants, and thereby throw the burden of proof on 
those who believe in and sanction the practice. The 
(217) 


218 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


arguments for infant baptism are cumulative and 
varied. I will therefore request both the Committee 
and Brothers Ford and Ennis, to listen patiently, and 
judge candidly; and if they see any flaw or falsehood in 
my arguments and deductions, to point out and expose 
it. What we want is the truth , let it lead us to what 
conclusions it will. If it upsets our previous opinions, 
let it do so. If they are wrong, the sooner we get rid 
of them, the better.” 

With this little exordium, Mr. Coleman continued: 
“Brother Ford said he could find no warrant for infant 
baptism in the New Testament. Am I to infer that 
you reject the teachings of the Old Testament by 
this explicit reference to the New?” 

Mr. Ford replied: “We believe baptism to be an 
ordinance of the New Testament exclusively; for in 
this alone we have an account of the organization of 
the Christian Church.” 

“ Does Brother Ford mean to say that God had no 
organized church in the world till after the coming of 
Christ?” 

He answered: “I wish to be understood as saying 
that there was no Gospel Church till after the coming 
of Christ. The Old Testament reveals a law dispen¬ 
sation ; the New Testament opens to us the Gospel 
dispensation. The Old was a dispensation of types 
and shadows, of cumbersome ordinances, which were 
to be done away when Christ came. It con¬ 
tained promises and prophecies of the coming Messiah; 
but it was only when Christ came that the true Church 
was set up on earth.” 

“ Do Baptist ministers, and churches in general, 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


219 


entertain tlie views just expressed by yourself?” Mr. 
Coleman inquired. 

He replied: “ I think they do.” 

“ Then you believe there was no Gospel Church in 
the world, nor any preaching of the Gospel, till after 
Christ came?” 

“ That is the view I take of it.” 

Mr. Coleman looked perfectly astonished at such an 
unexpected statement from Mr. Ford. He then re¬ 
plied: 

“ I regret to learn that you differ so widely with the 
Apostle Paul. He tells us (Gal. iii: 8),‘And the 
Scripture forseeing that God would justify the heathen 
through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abra¬ 
ham.’ §o in the sixth verse it is said, ‘ Abraham 
believed God, and it was accounted unto him for 
righteousness.’ ” 

Mr. Coleman continued: “ Here we have the explicit 
statement that the Gospel was preached to Abraham, 
that he believed it, and that this practical faith was 
accounted to him for righteousness. Paul utters the 
same sentiment in Pom. iv : 9, 10, ‘ For we say that 
faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How 
was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision or 
in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncir¬ 
cumcision, and he received the sign of circumcision, a 
seal of the righteousness he had, yet being uncircum¬ 
cised.’ Now, if I understand the import of language, 
three facts are stated. 1st, The Gospel was preached 
to Abraham ; 2d, he believed it ; and, 3d, he received 
circumcision as a sign and seal of this Gospel faith.” 

Mr. Ford made no reply. How could he, in the 


220 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


face of such testimony ? Either Paul or himself was 
mistaken. Which was it ? 

Mr. Coleman continued: “I should be unwilling to 
do either Brother Ford, or our Baptist brethren gene¬ 
rally, any injustice. I certainly love them for their 
many excellent qualities, and for their faithful advo¬ 
cacy of the truth as they understand it. I do not be¬ 
lieve they would for a moment intentionally pervert 
the truth; but our human processes of reasoning are 
such, that having accepted a statement as true, we try 
to make all other related statements harmonize with 
it. It therefore seems to me that your position on 
that point is the result of special pleading to avoid the 
argument drawn from the example of Abraham, in 
circumcising his children, in the application of it to 
the question of infant baptism.” 

“But really, Brother Coleman, it seems to me that 
you do not discriminate between the Law and the 
Gospel. Was it not, as I said, that the Old Testament 
dispensation was a law dispensation?” said Mr. Ford. 

Mr. Coleman replied : “ While there is a law re¬ 
vealed in the Old Testament, the Gospel is also 
revealed there. The Gospel and the Law flow along 
together through the entire Bible. I think I do dis¬ 
criminate, Brother Ford. If you will look at Paul’s 
argument in the third chapter of Galatians, you will 
And that he makes the following points : 

“ 1. The Gospel was preached to Abraham by God 
Himself and Abraham believed it. 

“ 2. He entered into covenant with Abraham, to be 
a God unto him, and his seed after him. This was, 
therefore, a Gospel covenant; as no higher spiritual 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


221 


good can come to man than to have Jehovah for his 
God. 

“ 3. That circumcision was given as a visible sign 
and seal of the righteousness which Abraham had 
through the circumcision of his heart by faith ; and 

“ 4. That the law dispensation, as you call it, was 
not given till four hundred and thirty years afterward 
—the giving of which law did not supersede nor abro¬ 
gate this Gospel covenant, but was simply added , as 
a sort of appendix, because of transgression, till the 
seed (Christ) should come, whom Abraham’s faith 
embraced in the promise, c And in thy seed shall all the 
families of the earth be blessed.’ ” 

“ Then I suppose you believe the visible Church was 
organized m the family of Abraham?” Mr. Ford 
replied. 

u Precisely — so far as the Church can have a visible 
form, it began in the family of Abraham.” 

“ Now, Brother Coleman, do you not, in all candor, 
believe that that covenant was one of temporal bless¬ 
ings, and was not that its distinguishing characteristic? 
In that covenant, God promised to give Abraham 
and his seed the land of Canaan for an everlasting pos¬ 
session. Was it not, therefore, a covenant having 
respect to temporal blessings?” 

“ Let us see how far your inference is correct. Does 
not Paul tell us that ‘ godliness is profitable unto all 
things, having the promise of the life that now is, and 
of that which is to come.’ Is it, therefore, any less a 
Gospel of rich, spiritual blessings, because it brings 
with it temporal good? ” 


222 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ There is force and truth in what you say,” Mr. 
Ford replied. 

Mr. Coleman continued : “ Can it be true that you 
have always taken so low and partial a view of the 
Abraliamic covenant as to suppose it had respect 
only to temporal blessings ? What was Canaan to 
Abraham, as an inheritance, compared to the fact 
that God was to be to him a God , his God — a protec¬ 
tor, defender, friend and guide, and his all-sufficient 
good; to be a God (in this high sense) to him and his 
seed after him, in their generations.” 

Mr. Ford replied: “The descendants of Abraham 
were divided into nations, as the Islimaelites, Edom¬ 
ites, and Hebrews, and they all practice circumcision. 
Are all these nations God’s covenant people on that 
account ? Is it not rather to them a badge of national 
descent? ” 

“ All those nations that practice circumcision do it 
as a religious rite. The grand truths symbolized in 
that ancient rite are lost to them; and in some sense 
it is, without doubt, a badge of national descent. But 
what important truth of revelation has not been turned 
into a lie by the ignorance and wickedness of men? 
The question is not what men ignorantly suppose cir¬ 
cumcision to be, but rather what God designed it to 
be—the sign of the circumcision of the heart, and 
the seal of a covenant of rich spiritual as well as tem¬ 
poral blessings.” 

Mr. Ford made no reply, so after a moment Mr. 
Coleman resumed: “The promise made to Abraham, 
that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be 
blessed, had its fulfillment in the posterity of Jacob.'- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


223 


The Messiah was to come in this branch of the Abra- 
hamic family. It was God’s design that Israel should 
be a pre-Christian nation. But mere nationality was 
not the end for which they were made a nation. They 
were to be models to the world of all manly virtues, 
and to reflect the beauty of the Lord in their social 
and public life. The law was given to them as it is 
given to all men—because of transgressions; and it 
was to be to them, as it is to us, ‘ a: schoolmaster to 
lead them to Christ.’ It could not, therefore, disannul 
the promise, or make it of non effect.” 

Mr. Ford made no sign that he meant to answer 
Mr. Coleman’s arguments, so the Moderator said: 

“Has Brother Ford any objection to offer, or any 
rebutting testimony to bring forward, in reply to Mr. 
Coleman?” 

“ The truth is, Mr. Moderator, I have nothing to 
offer to this style of argument. I feel just like sitting 
still to listen to all the facts that Brother Coleman 
may bring forward in support of infant baptism.” 

Mr. Coleman then resumed: “Since Brother Ford 
has failed to show that infant baptism contravenes any 
doctrine of the Bible, or any fundamental principle 
of order in the Church, or that it is anywhere forbid¬ 
den in the Scriptures, I now propose to show: 

“ 1. That infant baptism is in harmony with a 
great fundamental principle, running through the en¬ 
tire system of revelation. 

“ 2. That in accordance with this principle, chil¬ 
dren were once coupled with their parents in covenant 
promises and obligations. 

“ 3. That that covenant is neither abrogated nor 


224 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


changed, but is in full force to-day, and is none other 
than the Gospel covenant. 

“ 4. I shall attempt to show that from the days of 
Abraham till the present hour, children have been re¬ 
garded and treated as subject to covenant restraints 
and promises. 

“ 5. That this principle, fully understood and faith¬ 
fully carried out in its true spirit and intent, will 
materially aid in the great work of bringing the world 
to Christ.” 

A smile gathered upon the face of Mr. Ford, as he 
said: “Ah, my brother, I fear you are attempting 
more than you can clearly perform. If you can do it 
fairly, I shall be glad to know it; and if you can con¬ 
vince me that my views have been wrong, I am bound 
to throw them away.” 

“ I have no doubt you think I cannot sustain the 
positions I have just taken. Indeed, from all your 
past associations, it would be very singular if you did 
not take the view you do on this question,” Mr. Cole¬ 
man replied. 

“Well, you have laid a broad foundation for your 
superstructure, and it will take you sometime to build 
your air castle,” Mr. Ford significantly hinted. 

Mr. Coleman replied: “ I think I know whereof I 
affirm. I have been over the ground before, and I 
intend to redeem my promise.” 

It happens not unfrequently that from local circum¬ 
stances, religious attachments are formed, and, through 
them, our doctrinal biases. It is thus that opinions 
are taken by the young and inexperienced from those 
who are older. Silently, these opinions harden into 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


225 


convictions, and, through the insidious workings of 
denominational church life, prejudices are wrought into 
the mind. Such was the case with Rev. Mr. Ford. 
From long association with those who regarded infant 
baptism as a popish custom, and fraught with nothing 
but evil, this association had silently moulded his 
opinions, till they had been settled convictions for 
years. In the interchange of Christian courtesies 
with the members of other churches, he had had the 
held of his charity enlarged, and the way was thus 
prepared for him to listen patiently to the presenta¬ 
tion of their views. He was also a man of a clear, 
logical mind, and of that candid turn that would 
cause him to weigh the opinions of others who might 
differ from him, with a good degree of impartiality. 
But lie would not surrender his own till he was driven, 
by the force of truth, to see that they were wrong, 
when he would at once frankly renounce them. 

Mr. Coleman opened the discussion by saying r 
“ Brother Ford objects to infant baptism on the ground 
that there is no express command in the Hew Testa¬ 
ment for it. If this objection is well founded, as it 
appears to be at first sight, it is a serious one. But I 
think the objection is only in appearance, and that 
when we come to examine the facts, it will be found 
to have no weight. 

“ It is a well-established principle in civil govern¬ 
ment that a law once enacted in any commonwealth 
must remain in force till repealed by the authority 
that enacted it. This is a common-sense principle, 
and fundamental to government itself. 

« How, if I prove that infants were once made mem- 
15 


226 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHLRD. 


bers of the Church of God, and that the then existing 
seal of the covenant was placed upon them by His 
express command — he being the only law-giver in 
this case — the law must be in force till repealed by 
himself. 

“ In this case, the silence of the Hew Testament is 
no objection, provided the law is clearly stated in the 
Old Testament and is not repealed in the Hew. I 
will now ask Brother Ford if this is not a logical and 
j ust conclusion ? ” 

Mr. Ford at once admitted the truth of the propo¬ 
sition. 

Mr. Coleman resumed: “ How for the proof. The 
first fact that I shall bring forward, and to which I 
wish to direct attention, as one of importance in this 
argument, is this: 

44 The true Church of God is one and the same in 
all ages / that the Christian is hut a continuation 
of the Abvahamic or Jewish Church —both being 
embraced in one covenant, both resting on the same 
great truths, and both having but one mission. 

“ First, then. The Christian Church is that which 
was taken from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles. 
To this fact Christ bears testimony himself. (See 
Matth. xxi: 43.) 4 Therefore say I unto you, the king¬ 
dom of God shall be taken from you and given to a 
nation bringing forth the fruit thereof.’ By the term, 
4 the kingdom of God,’ is meant the kingdom of Christ, 
which is his Church, according to Brother Ford’s 
exegesis of the term. 

“Second. From the Abrahamic Church the Jews 
as the natural branches, were broken through un- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


227 


belief. Into it the Gentiles were grafted by faith, 
according to the statement of the Apostle Paul, in 
Rom. xi: 16 to 24, ‘ For if the first fruit (Abraham) 
be holy, the lump (the Jewish Church) is also holy; 
and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if 
some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a 
wild (Gentile) olive tree, wert grafted in among them, 
and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the 
olive tree, boast not against the branches; but if thou 
boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off that 
I might be grafted in. Well, because of unbelief they 
were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not 
high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the nat¬ 
ural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee. And 
they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be 
grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.’ 

“ I now ask the Committee, I ask Brother Ford, it 
anything can be plainer or more to the point in proof 
of the fact that the Abrahamic or Jewish Church is 
here spoken of under the figure of a good olive tree. 
Abraham was the root. He was holy in the sense of 
being righteous, and standing in visible covenant 
relation with God. If he, as the root, was holy, then 
the tree (the true Church) is also holy, because it stands 
in the same covenant relation to God as did Abraham. 
It is into this same Church, with its covenant bless¬ 
ings, that the believing Gentiles are grafted; and 
finally, it is the same and their own Church into 
which the Jews are to be grafted, when by faith they 
turn to their own Messiah — the Lord Jesus.” 

Mr. Coleman paused, to give Mr. Ford an oppor- 


228 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPIIEKD. 


tunity to object if he saw anything wrong in his 
argument. But Mr. Ford said: 

“ You have made your case pretty plain, thus far. 
It is useless for me to wrestle with your arguments.” 

Mr. Coleman continued: 44 It was the Abrahamic 
Church, with its covenants of promise, that Paul styles 
4 the commonwealth of Israel,’ (Eph. ii: 12) and of 
which he speaks in the 19tli verse — 4 How t , therefore, 
ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow- 
citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.’ 
The believing Jews inherited this commonwealth by 
faith, and were not broken off from it, as in the figure 
of the good olive tree, and the believing Gentiles 
became fellow-citizens with them.” 

He continued: 44 This is the 4 mystery of Christ,’ of 
which Paul also speaks in the 4th verse of the third 
chapter of the Ephesians, and of which he says, in the 
sixth verse, 4 that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, 
and of the same body (not another) and partakers of 
his promise in Christ, by the Gospel.’ ” 

44 There!” said Mr. Coleman, 44 can testimony be 
more explicit, or more conclusive, to prove the iden¬ 
tity of the Abrahamic and Christian Church? How, 
since, in the setting up of His Church, God, by ex¬ 
press command, made infants of believing parents 
members of the Church, and authorized the placing 
of the seal of the covenant upon them, they must still 
be members, and entitled to the present seal, which is 
baptism, unless it can be shown that the law which 
made them members has been repealed.” 

Then addressing Mr. Ford, he said: 44 Has that law 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


229 


been repealed? If so, when—where? What have yon 
to say to that argument? ” 

Mr. Ford replied: “ I cannot answer your argument. 
You have made it much stronger than I supposed you 
could. In fact, your method of reasoning is new to 
me, and it carries with it the strong probability of 
being true.” 

“ It seems, then, that Brother Ford can find no 
fault with either the facts or logic of my argument, 
and these facts are proved: 

“ 1. That the Church is one and the same in all 
ages. 

“ 2. That by explicit command children were made 
members of this one, holy, spiritual Church. 

“ 3. That the law making them members has not 
been repealed, and, I may add, is in its nature unre- 
pealable. 

“ 4. It follows, therefore, as a logical consequence, 
that in the order of Christ’s kingdom, children are still 
entitled, equally with their parents, to a place in the 
Church of God, as its wards, to be fostered and 
trained up in the spiritual kingdom.” 

And now, gentle reader, as you have followed Mr. 
Coleman’s argument, as we have narrated it, I ask you 
if it is not conclusively proven that children, in com¬ 
mon with their believing parents, are entitled from 
infancy to the sheltering care and tender nursing of 
the Church? Would it be wise to care for and fold 
the sheep, while the tender lambs are unsheltered, un¬ 
protected from the devouring wolf? 

But the question really is, What do the Scriptures 
teach in regard to infant church membership, and, 


230 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SIIEPHERD. 


consequently, in regard to infant baptism? Granting 
that there is no express command in the New Testa¬ 
ment to baptize infants, does it follow, therefore, that 
it is wrong to baptize them? If Christ regards them 
as being de facto believers, and as members of His 
spiritual household, it follows that they are entitled to 
all the privileges of His house, just so far, and so fast, 
as they are capable of receiving them. It is a sad 
idea that children should be treated as if they were 
really aliens to the house of God, and be left to 
develop sinful characters and habits ; for it is hard, 
when the spirit of evil has them under his control, to 
rescue them. How much better to bring the sweet 
influences of Christian love to bear upon their infant 
souls, which, with the blessing of the Holy Spirit, 
opens the fountain of life in them, even before they 
know its nature and its source. 

Mr. Coleman resumed: .“In a former part of our 
discussion, Brother Ford expressed the opinion that 
the Abrahamic covenant referred only to temporal 
blessings. I then briefly proved, as I think, that it 
was a covenant of spiritual blessings in the highest 
sense, though including temporal good. I wish now 
to refer to it again, to remove, if possible, any linger¬ 
ing doubt on that subject by presenting further testi¬ 
mony to prove that the Abrahamic covenant required 
nothing less than true religion of the highest and 
most spiritual type. 

“ In proof of this, I will read what God demanded 
of His ancient covenant people.” So, taking the 
Bible, he turned to Gen. xvii: 7, “ And I will estab¬ 
lish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


231 


after tliee in their generations, for an everlasting cove¬ 
nant, to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee.” 
Turning to Exodus xix : 5, 6, he read : “Now, there¬ 
fore, if ye will obey my voice, indeed, and keep my 
covenants, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto me, 
above all people, for all the earth is mine. And ye 
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy 
nation .” “ Let us compare these two passages with the 
declaration of Moses, as recorded in Deut. x : 12 to 16.” 
Turning to the passage, he read, “ And now Israel, 
what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to 
fear the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to 
love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart and with all thy soul.” 

“ I trust,” said Mr. Coleman, “ that with such ex¬ 
plicit statements as these, every lingering doubt in the 
minds of any of the Committee, and of Brother Ford 
himself, will at once disappear. Can anything be 
clearer than the fact that the Abrahamic covenant 
required nothing less than true spiritual religion?” 

Mr. Ford replied: “I yield the point. I see that 
nothing less than a change of heart was demanded of 
God’s ancient people; for though not expressed in 
form, yet the love and obedience required could only 
flow from a regenerated heart. And yet,” he con* 
tinned, “ this was only stating what the law of God 
demands. It laid the claim of duty upon man; but 
it has no Christ in it, and it offers no pardon to peni¬ 
tent sinners.” 

“ I am really surprised,” said Mr. Coleman, “ to 
hear you give utterance to such an idea. When God 
proclaimed himself to Moses in Mount Sinai, at the 


232 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


time of giving the law, did He not, in that wonderful 
revelation of himself, and of the great fundamental 
principles of his moral government, declare himself 
* Merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity , trans¬ 
gression and sin'? And then, too, when God 
preached the gospel to Abraham, did he not say, ‘ In 
thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed’? 
Was there no Christ in all this — no pardon for peni¬ 
tent sinners? Why, surely you are beside yourself to 
entertain such a thought.” 

Mr. Ford fairly blushed at this sharp rebuke of his 
<doubt, but made no reply. 

Mr. Coleman continued: “ Since Christ is the seed 
■of Abraham, according to Paul’s statement, in the 
third chapter of Galatians, in which the nations as 
sinners are to be blessed, it is clear that the proclama¬ 
tion of this promise carries with it the offer of par¬ 
don through the coming Messiah, and was, therefore, 
the gospel preached to Abraham and all his descend¬ 
ants. That promise, fulfilled in Christ, is the only 
iiope of a lost and ruined race. Yes, Brother Ford, 
that was gospel, pre-eminently gospel.” 

“ That certainly is so,” said Mr. Ennis, who had 
watched with growing interest and conviction of its 
truth, the Bible facts and illustrations presented by 
Mr. Coleman. 


CHAPTEE XIY. 


S HE truth is*, the law and the gospel flow along 
together, all through the Old and Hew Testa¬ 
ments, as I said in a former part of this discussion. 
And they mutually support each other, the law pre¬ 
scribing the line of duty, and the gospel offering the 
support of an Almighty arm, and the inspiration 
of divine strength, to encourage effort; presenting 
motives of the purest and loftiest character, to holy 
obedience. The gospel, and its great truths and its 
one all-availing sacrifice, in the person of Christ, as the 
6 Lamb of God] was shadowed forth in the sacrifices 
of the ceremonial law, by which the gospel was 
preached, from age to age.” 

The Moderator, and every member of the Com¬ 
mittee, including both Mr. Ennis and Mr. Lee, 
expressed their assent to these statements of Mr. Cole¬ 
man, with very significant nods, the same as to say: 
“ That is true.” Mr. Coleman noticed it, and encour¬ 
aged by their approval, proceeded: 

“ It should be remembered as a great truth, that the 
duties and promises of the Abrahamic covenant are 
reciprocal. The gospel does not free us from the 
claims of the law. If it did, it would be the minister 
of sin. On the other hand, it is a merciful provision 
to enable us to fulfill the law. 

“ And then, too, I do not see that Brother Ford’s 
position helps him any, for all the duties of the Chris- 
( 233 ) 


234 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


tian life are duties made obligatory by the law, even 
Baptism itself included. 

u Now, to give all this reasoning force, let me add 
that the Abrahamic covenant, as we have seen, con¬ 
nected children with their parents, in its obligations 
and promises. The duty to obligate the children, by 
circumcision, was not against law, but in accordance 
with its demands. It was a duty growing necessarily 
out of the parental relation, the same in every age, 
and under every dispensation, varying only in the 
external form of the obligating rite.” 

“ It seems, then, that you think baptism a law 
duty,” Mr. Ford replied. 

“All duties are law duties,” Mr. Coleman answered. 

This was a new thought to Mr. Ford, as well as to 
all the members of the Committee. It is a truth, 
borne out in the experience of all deep and independ¬ 
ent thinkers, that the great mass of men float along 
with the theological currents that set in around them. 
Mr. Ford, though a good man and a good preacher, 
social and genial in his manners, was not an original 
nor a deep thinker. He took his theology as it came 
to him, manufactured by others. His mind seldom 
grasped fundamental principles till they were forced 
upon him by a deeper thinker than himself. And 
yet though cautious about taking new ground, he was 
really open to conviction, and when convinced that he 
had been in the wrong, his conscience was too loyal 
to truth to allow him to hold back an open avowal 
of it. 

Mr. Coleman resumed the thread of his argument: 
“ It is a fundamental principle in the moral govern- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


235 


ment of God, that children are linked with their 
parents in duty and destiny. Parents are bound by 
the law of God, to assume for their children whatever 
pertains to their physical, mental and moral welfare. 
Parents stand in the place of God to their infant off¬ 
spring, and the early responsibilities of the child are 
locked up in those of the parent. In a modified sense 
their children are a part of themselves. And hence 
they should assume for them whatever their chil¬ 
dren should properly assume for themselves when 
they come to years of accountability. Thus their 
responsibility for their children covers all the ground 
of their children’s responsibility for themselves in 
after years. Physically they feed, clothe and train 
them; mentally they think for them, they teach, they 
educate them; morally they are to discipline them, 
direct their conduct, and train them in the way they 
should go. In all these respects parents are bound, 
by the law of God, to do for their children just what 
their children would be bound to do for themselves if 
they were capable of moral action.” 

Mr. Coleman paused to give Mr. Ford an oppor¬ 
tunity to reply, if he chose to do so. As he did not 
answer, Mr. Coleman said: 

“ What does Brother Ford say to these statements 
of parental obligation in behalf of their children?” 

Mr. Ford looked up with a smile and said: 

“ I yield in this point, too. Your statement is too 
plain and too true for successful denial.” 

“But what would the child’s duty now be, if it 
were capable of moral action, and personally able to 
do its duty? ” 


23 G 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ Why, it would be its duty to consecrate its powers 
to God, and to love and obey him,” Mr. Ford replied. 

“ But in making that consecration, would it not be 
the child’s duty to take upon itself the appropriate 
seal of consecration?” said Mr. Ennis, who at once 
saw the force of Mr. Coleman’s argument. 

“ And be baptized,” responded Mr. Lee. 

“Yes; but from whom is this consecration now 
due? ” 

“ I see it,” ejaculated Mr. Ennis. “That consecra¬ 
tion is now due from the parents, with whom its moral 
agency is now lodged. I never saw it in that light 
before.” 

“ Your conclusion is at once reasonable and just,” 
said Mr. Coleman. “ God demands this consecration. 
It is his due. And, as God communicates with the 
child through the medium of its parents, providing 
for its wants, physical, mental and moral, so the 
return due him must go up through the same parental 
medium.” 

This argument of Mr. Coleman was so clearly stated, 
and so in harmony with the general teachings of the 
Bible, that Mr. Ford was entirely silenced, while 
Messrs. Ennis and Lee seemed to be completely car¬ 
ried away with it. But Mr. Coleman was too deeply 
read in human nature not to know that early preju¬ 
dices and old prepossessions would rise and struggle 
to displace the newly received truth. When prejudices 
and prepossessions, with the arguments upon which 
they were based, have grown familiar, they assume 
the shape of settled convictions. On the other hand, 
the new truths and the arguments that illustrate and 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


237 


support them, not being familiar, are liable to vanish 
like a pleasant dream, and pass away from the mind. 
To counteract this tendency, it is necessary to repeat 
the facts and arguments by which the truth is sup¬ 
ported in such a variety of forms and with such 
cogency of reasoning and amplitude of illustration as 
will make it familiar to the mind. It is by this pro¬ 
cess that truth displaces error and works itself into 
settled conviction. 

With this fact before him, and to further illustrate 
and enforce the duty of infant consecration, Mr. Cole¬ 
man resumed his line of argument, by saying: 

“ This law, by which the responsibility of the child 
is locked up in that of the parent, during its earlier 
years, is universally recognized in all civil govern¬ 
ments, and is a familiar principle in common law. In 
common law, children are regarded as members of the 
body politic, on account of a natural relation to their 
parents, while parents embody and represent the rights 
of their children. 

“ Children are therefore subject to civil responsibili¬ 
ties, without their own knowledge or consent. Deeds, 
covenants and contracts, include heirs and descend to 
them, charged with various liabilities and conditions, 
which children cannot set aside, except at their peril. 

“Without such an arrangement, human society 
could not hold together, and the golden chain of order 
and law would be broken. 

“ But this principle, so essential to the strength and 
integrity of society, applies equally to the moral gov¬ 
ernment of God, for it is out of that government that 
the civil relation grows. Should we separate children 


238 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


from tlieir parents, in this civil relation, weakness and 
anarchy would ensue. Just so in the moral kingdom. 
Give to children a religious independence of their 
parents, and a vital principle in the moral economy of 
that kingdom is set aside, and this golden chain of 
strength and beauty is broken.” 

Mr. Coleman then turned to Mr. Ford, and said: 

“ "Will Brother Ford show my position and the facts 
and arguments by which I have supported it, to be 
false, if he thinks it to be so?” 

“ There is great force in your reasoning, and the 
principles you have laid down cannot be controverted.” 

“ Is not this principle prominent in the Abrahamic 
covenant?” said Mr. Coleman. 

“ I cannot deny it. I must confess that I think it 
is,” Mr. Ford replied. 

“ Then I need not parade the evidence.” 

Mr. Ennis, who had become deeply interested in the 
subject, interposed, saying: 

“ Brother Coleman, you will do me a favor briefly 
to present it. I wish to see it, just as it stands in the 
Bible. That is the judge which ends the strife with 
me.” 

“ You will find it in Gen. xvii : 9 to 12,” said Mr. 
Coleman. 

Mr. Ennis took the Bible, and turning to the 
passage read: “And God said unto Abraham, thou 
shalt keep my covenant, therefore, thou and thy seed 
after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant, 
which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy 
seed after thee; every man child among you shall be 
circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


239 


your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant 
betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old, 
shall be circumcised, among you, every man child in 
your generations.” 

Mr. Coleman then said: “ If you wish to see how 
Abraham obeyed the command, you will find it in the 
21st chapter and 4th verse.” 

Mr. Ennis turned and read: “And Abraham cir¬ 
cumcised his son Isaac, being eight days old, as God 
commanded him.” 

“The distinctively religious character,” Mr. Cole¬ 
man remarked, “ of circumcision is finely set forth in 
Rom. ii : 28, 29.” 

Mr. Ennis turned to the passage and again read: 
“For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither 
is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but 
he is a Jew that is one inwardly, and circumcision is 
that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, 
whose praise is not of men, but of God.” 

“ You will now see,” Mr. Coleman continued, “ that 
circumcision in the flesh was not the real circumcision, 
but only the outward symbol of it. It was an out¬ 
ward seal of the rich spiritual blessings attending cir¬ 
cumcision of the heart. As such it was the seal of a 
covenant proclaiming Christ as the hope of sinners. 

“ This Abrahamic covenant was the true Christian 
covenant. Under the old symbolic and shadowy dis¬ 
pensation, circumcision was the most appropriate seal. 
It was a bloody rite. It harmonized with the bloody 
scenes of the daily sacrifice of the slain victims, as 
symbolic of the one all availing sacrifice of the 
6 Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.’ 


2-10 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ But when that dispensation had answered its end, 
and Christ the great Anti-type had come, and had nailed 
these ordinances to his cross, as worn out and obsolete, 
it was proper that circumcision should pass away with 
them, and a new and more appropriate seal, and one 
equally symbolic and expressive, should take its place.” 

“I see what you are aiming at,” said Mr. Ford, 
“ you want to prove that Baptism takes the place of 
circumcision. That is the old argument, but I never 
could see any force in it.” 

Mr. Coleman replied: “A truth is no less true 
because it is old. You seem disposed to jump at con¬ 
clusions. I am not aiming so much to prove the fact 
that baptism takes the place of circumcision as to 
establish the truth of that great fundamental principle 
in the moral government of God, that parents and 
children are equally connected in obligation and priv¬ 
ilege, and that this connection is therefore a funda¬ 
mental law of Christianity. 

“The point is just here: This covenant of grace, 
made wfith Abraham, embraced his infant offspring, 
and placed the then existing seal of the covenant upon 
them. Circumcision is no longer the seal of that cov¬ 
enant. It is, therefore, without a seal, unless Baptism 
be that seal. If, now, we look at Baptism, we find 
that it occupies the same place, and answers the same 
purpose in the Christian church that circumcision did 
in the Abrahamic or Jewish Church. 

“ In this connection, please also notice, that what¬ 
ever the seal at any time may be, attaching to the cov¬ 
enant of grace, under any dispensation, it belongs 
equally to parents and children. This is the estab- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


. 241 


lished law of the Kingdom — the Church. It must, 
therefore, he in force till it is repealed. Again, I ask: 
Has this law been repealed? When? Where? ” 

To that inquiry Mr. Ford made no reply. There 
was none to be made, unless it was to concede the 
whole question. That law, being fundamental in the 
kingdom of Grace, it was unrepeatable, for God could 
not annul that principle, any more than he could be 
untruthful. 

“ You will also observe that, according to this law, 
the seal of the Hew Dispensation, which I would call 
‘ The Second Edition of the Gospel Covenant,’ should 
be applied to infants, as well as adults, and since Bap¬ 
tism is now the acknowledged seal of the same 
covenant, it should be applied to them.” 

This reasoning of Mr. Coleman was so plain, so 
biblical, and so in harmony with the golden chain of 
order and law, that all doubts in the minds of Mr. 
Ennis and Mr. Lee, in regard to the propriety of 
Infant Baptism, were removed. And even Mr. Ford, 
himself, was more than half convinced. But there 
still remained some lingering doubts in his mind — 
some unsolved question yet to be answered. But these 
we leave for the following chapters, where the reader 
will find them discussed and settled. 

We will only add, that the “ old argument ,” as Mr. 
Ford called it, is most emphatically a grand old truth , 
and we think the reader, who has carefully weighed 
the facts which have been brought out during this dis¬ 
cussion, will coincide with this judgment. 

All the misconceptions of men upon this entire 
subject of Baptism, are the result of ignorance and 
16 


242 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


prejudice, the practical effect of which has been to 
divide those who should have been united in charity 
and Christian fellowship. 

At the close of Mr. Coleman’s remarks, as recorded 
above, Mr. Lyman moved a recess of ten minutes, to 
relieve the audience of the weariness of sitting. It 
was seconded and carried, and so the audience had a 
little time for an interchange of views. 


CHAPTEK XV. 


t T the expiration of the recess, the Moderator 
requested Mr. Coleman and Mr. Ford to pro¬ 
ceed with the discussion. 

As Mr. Ford said he only wished to be a hearer for 
the present, the burden of proof being on Mr. Cole¬ 
man, that gentleman proceeded as follows: 

“ I have not brought out all the proof upon this 
subject as yet. I told you at the outset that the evi¬ 
dence was cumulative. I now propose to proceed a 
step further, and prove that the Lord Jesus Christ was 
himself a minister of the circumcision, and that the 
essential baptism is Christian circumcision.” 

Mr. Ford looked up at Mr. Coleman, while a smile 
of incredulity swept over his features, and he thought 
to himself, “ Is Mr. Coleman a monomaniac to talk in 
that way? ” 

That gentleman caught the eye of Mr. Ford, and 
suspecting his thought, said : “ Perhaps you think me 
almost or quite beside myself; but if I am so, I am in 
good company. Will the testimony of the Apostle 
Paul have any weight with you? ” 

u O, certainly, certainly,” Mr. Ford responded. 

“ Then Paul shall be my witness.” Then, turning 
to Kom. xv : 8, he read: ‘ Now I say Jesus Christ was 
a minister of the circumcision, for the truth of God, 
to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.’ ” 

( 243 ) 


244 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ What were the promises made to the fathers V 9 
Mr. Ennis inquired. 

Mr. Coleman answered: “The promise made to 
Abraham, ‘ I will be a God to thee and thy seed alter 
thee in their generations, and in thy seed shall all the 
families of the earth be blessed.’ This was one of 
them. Another will be found in Joel, ii : 28, as 
quoted by Peter, Acts, ii : 17, ‘ And it shall come to 
pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my 
spirit upon all flesh.’ And yet another will be found 
in Isa. xliv : 3, ‘ For I will pour water upon him that 
is (spiritually) thirsty, and floods upon the dry 
ground. I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my 
blessing upon thine offspring.’ 

“ Now for an illustration of the real teachings of 
these promises,” Mr. Coleman continued. “I will 
refer you to the words of Jesus, as recorded in John, 
vii : 38, 39, ‘ He that believeth on me, as the Scrip¬ 
ture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of 
living water. ( But this spake he of the Spirit, which 
they that believe on him should receive; for the Holy 
Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not 
yet glorified.)’ Take the language of Peter, Acts, ii : 
33, ‘ Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, 
and having received of the Father the promise of the 
Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see 
and hear.’ 

“ If now you will carefully examine the import of 
these promises made to the fathers, and the illustra¬ 
tions given by Jesus himself, and by Peter afterwards, 
on the day of Pentecost, you will see that Christ was 
the administrator of the spiritual circumcision prom- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


245 


ised, and of course the central figure in the promise 
made to Abraham, whose seal was circumcision in the 
flesh; and as Christ bestows this circumcision of the 
heart, he is therefore its minister. This fact has its 
illustration in Col. ii: 11, 4 In whom also ye are cir¬ 
cumcised with the circumcision made without hands, 
in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the 
circumcision of Christ.’ 

“ You will see, as shown by Brother Lovell, in his 
discussion upon the mode of baptism, that this spir¬ 
itual circumcision is identical with the spiritual bap¬ 
tism; for in this we. are really ‘buried with Christ to 
the rudiments of the world, and to the control of sin¬ 
ful lusts and passions.’ 

“ This spiritual burial stands in indissoluble connec¬ 
tion with the death of sin in the‘soul, and the new 
life of love that Christ creates by the regenerating 
power of his Spirit. This is the ‘circumcision of 
Christ.’ He administers it, and is, therefore, the 
‘ minister of the (true internal) circumcision’, accord¬ 
ing to Paul’s language. 

“ That I have not misinterpreted the teaching of the 
Apostle upon this point, will be seen from the testi¬ 
mony of J ustin Martyr, who was the earliest of the 
fathers, who wrote after the Apostles. He was a man 
of great learning, and reflected the general faith of his 
times. He flourished early in the second century. In 
his dialogue with Typho, a Jew, he says: ‘ We also , 
who by him (Christ) have access to God, have not 
received this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual 
circumcision which Enoch , and those like him , 
observed . And we have received it by baptism , by 


246 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


the mercy of God , because we are sinners , and it is 
enjoined upon all persons to receive it in the same 
manner .’ ” 

“ I should call that pretty strong testimony,” said 
Mr. Ennis. “ What do you think about it, Brother 
Ford?” 

“I have nothing to say; I am a listener now,” he 
replied. 

“ But if you see anything wrong in the argument, 
you will point it out, I suppose?” 

Mr. Ford smiled, and answered, “ I will, of course.” 

Mr. Coleman resumed: “I now wish to show you 
the perfect parallelism and identity between circum¬ 
cision and baptism, when internal and spiritual, by 
the following comparison: 

“ ‘ For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that 
circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew which 
is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of 
God,’ Rom. ii: 28, 29. 

“ ‘For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly, neither is 
that baptism which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Chris¬ 
tian who is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the 
spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of 
God.’ 

“ Here you have Paul’s idea of circumcision, and 
now I ask if tlie same is not true when applied to 
baptism, according to this comparison. Do not the 
facts I have presented prove that circumcision and 
baptism are identical in spirit and in the purposes 
they were designed to accomplish? ” 

“ I admit,” Mr. Ford answered, “there is great force 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


247 


in your reasoning. I dare not say that you are wrong, 
but I wait for further light.” 

“Brother Ford, does the Lord’s Supper take the 
place of the Passover? ” inquired Mr. Coleman. 

He replied: “I am hardly prepared to express an 
opinion; but I am inclined to think it does. What is 
your opinion? ” 

Mr. Coleman replied: “ I think it does, and for 
these reasons: Both were commemorative. The Pas¬ 
chal Supper was a prophetic reminder of the ‘ lamb to 
be slain ’ for the salvation of sinful men. It was also 
a constant reminder of God’s love and sparing mercy 
to his covenant people. In the Paschal feast, bread 
and wine were also used. 

“ When the Lord’s Supper was instituted by the 
Master, it was at the close of the Paschal Supper. 
Here Christ takes the bread and wine then on the 
table, and makes them the commemorative emblems 
of his ‘ body broken and his blood shed,’ as an all- 
availing sacrifice for sin. He was the real Paschal 
Lamb shadowed forth in the Lamb of the Pass- 
over. Of course, the shadow must pass away 
when the substance casting it has come. But still 
a commemorative ordinance was needed — one that 
should answer the same great end, that gave rise to 
the other; and so the bread and wine take the 
place of the Paschal Lamb, and commemorate ‘Christ 
our Passover, slain for us.’ It was henceforth to be 
observed in rememberance of the unselfish love of 
Christ for a lost and perishing world — a constant 
reminder of the unselfish and suffering love that he 
would awaken and keep alive in his people, that should 


248 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


impel them to a like life of labor and sacrifice for the 
salvation of men. 

“ It was, therefore, designed to serve the same pur¬ 
pose in the New Dispensation that the Paschal Supper 
did in the Old” 

“Then undoubtedly it takes the place of the Pascal 
Sapper—that is, it is the Paschal Supper, with the 
Iamb thrown out, because, as a symbol or shadow, it 
must pass away when the real lamb (Christ) was slain,” 
said Mr. Ennis. 

“I think you are right,” said Mr. Ford. “It cer¬ 
tainly is so, if I am any judge.” 

Mr. Coleman had brought Messrs. Ennis and Ford 
to the point to which he wanted them to come, that 
he might press a vital point in this question. So he 
said: “Have you ever thought that, as the Lord’s 
Supper is the Paschal Supper, in a slightly altered 
form, so Baptism is Christian circumcision, with the 
bloody part thrown out; that as circumcision was the 
seal of the Abrahamic covenant, during the dispensa¬ 
tion of types and shadows, so baptism is equally the 
seal of the same covenant, under the Hew Dispensa¬ 
tion, or what I call the second and improved edition 
of the Abrahamic covenant?” 

“There certainly seems to be a striking parallel 
between the two; but I never thought of it in that 
light before,” Mr. Ford replied. 

“ Here, then,” said Mr. Coleman, “ the arguments 
come to a focus. Baptism takes the place of circum¬ 
cision, and the seal of the covenant belongs to infants, 
the same in the Hew as in the Old Dispensation.” 

Mr. Coleman paused. His argument was com- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


249 


plete; he had made good his promise, so far as the 
Scriptural argument is concerned. The historic argu¬ 
ment is reserved for the subsequent chapters. 

Mr. Ford sat apparently absorbed in deep thought; 
and we leave the reader to judge as to the effect of 
this reasoning upon his mind, from the concessions 
he had been forced to make at various stages of the 
argument. 

It was the first time that either Mr. Ennis or Mr. 
Lee had ever heard the question so fully or fairly 
discussed. But as Messrs. Lovell and Coleman had 
unfolded their views, step by step the scales had been 
falling from their eyes. And now, as Mr. Coleman 
closed his argument, they were both so impressed 
with its truthfulness and beauty, that they could keep 
still no longer. So, simultaneously coming up to Mr. 
Coleman, they seized his hands, and mutually ex¬ 
pressed their conviction of the truth of his position. 

Mr. Ennis finally said: “ I begin to see the truth 
of a statement you made in your sermon last Sunday 
evening.” 

“What was that?’’ said Mr. Coleman, pleased with 
Mr. Ennis’ earnestness. 

“ You said the Bible was like a vast mine of pre¬ 
cious nietal, buried deep in the earth, and that its 
richest ores could be obtained only by digging, and 
that the deeper we dig the richer will be the ore, and 
the purer the metal.” 

Then, in a moment he added: “ It seems to me that 
I have always been wandering over the surface without 
knowing what rich treasures were hid below; and now 
you have been opening one of the rich veins , and 


250 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


how bright and beautiful the metal shines! This 
must be what Solomon calls ‘ wisdom/ and of which 
he says, c The merchandise of it is better than silver, 
and the gain thereof than fine gold.’ ” 


CHAPTER XVI. 


Ah! who can tell the fatal charm 
That error throws around the soul ? 

Its siren song lulls all alarm, 

It hides its deadly power to harm, 

And holds its victims in control. 

But truth is mightier by far, 

And though for ages seemed to fail — 

Though dim at first, like some faint star, 

Its chariot is a sun-bright car; 

It comes, it spreads, and will prevail. 

f HE reader can scarcely imagine the thoughts and 
emotions that were struggling in Mr. Ford’s 
mind. He had already conceded the argument 
on the mode of baptism, and had been led to make 
many separate admissions upon the points involved in 
infant baptism. Yet he was not sure that the conclu¬ 
sions to which Mr. Coleman had pressed his argument 
were the logical and inevitable deductions of the facts 
brought forward. At one moment he was inclined to 
think that to be the case. Then he thought of his 
life-long associations, and of the good men who be¬ 
lieved just as he had always done. Could it be pos¬ 
sible that they were all mistaken? And then his 
thoughts ran back to the scenes of his childhood, and 
to the hour of his conversion. He thought of his 
venerable father, who had been a Baptist from his 
earliest recollection. Were they all, and was he, too, 
in the dark? Ho; it could not be. And then he 
( 251 ) 


252 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


remembered that thousands of men, equally learned 
and good, had always held and advocated the views 
that Mr. Coleman had been presenting, — men as 
anxious to know the truth as were the good men with 
whom he had always associated. Thus he was driven 
back and forth, between contending thoughts and 
emotions. They only who have been through this 
experience can tell the anxiety and unrest of the mind 
at such an hour. Such w T as the condition of Mr. 
Ford. He had been confident, at first, that his views 
of baptism were true and just. He had been driven 
by the force of argument and Bible illustrations to 
concede the mode , but thought surely he would carry 
the day on the question of infant baptism; and now 
he felt the planks slipping from under him; but still 
he would hold on, and only surrender when he could 
hold out no longer. 

As the reader will see, his objections had thus far 
been silenced, and his positions shown to be baseless. 
But the mind does not easily lose its hold upon long 
cherished opinions, even though those opinions are the 
result of misconception and prejudice. For the time 
being they assume the appearance of truth; and until 
the illusion is dissipated, the mind holds on to them 
with the power of a death grasp. 

This is the reason why so many who have embraced 
error in early life, hold on to it with tenacity, and die 
under its illusions. 

Mr. Ford’s mind had so long revolved in special 
circles of thought in regard to baptism that it had, as 
it were, worn itself a path, out of which he seemed 
bewildered. Mr. Coleman’s arguments were too much 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


253 


for him. He was silenced, but not fully convinced. 
IJp to this point Mr. Coleman had driven him from 
his strongest positions; but his objections had not all 
been answered, at least in set form. He had always 
regarded infant baptism as a relic of Popery, and, as 
the reader remembers, had so stated in the outset of 
his debate with Mr. Lovell. To this position he still 
clung. So he said: 

“ Brother Coleman, your process of reasoning is new 
to me, and your arguments appear logical and scrip¬ 
tural; but somehow, I cannot see the subject as you 
do. It seems to me that there must be a kinJc some¬ 
where that I don’t get hold of. I cannot escape the 
conviction that, after all, infant baptism is a relic of 
Popery, and has come up since the days of the Apos¬ 
tles. Why is it there is no mention of it in the Hew 
Testament? If the Apostles really baptized children, 
it seems to me it should come out in some way in 
their Epistles, or in the Acts of the Apostles. What 
means this wonderful silence? We have numerous ac¬ 
counts of the baptism of adults, but none of children.” 

Mr. Coleman replied: “It is true, there is no men¬ 
tion of the baptism of children, apart from their 
parents; but in my view, the Apostolic practice of 
baptizing 6 households ’ does, in the nature of the case, 
involve the baptism of children. 

“ We have the distinct mention of four cases of house¬ 
hold baptism: Lydia and her household, the Jailor and 
his household, Cornelius and his household, and the 
household of Stephan us.” 

“ There is no proof that there were any children in 
these households,” Mr. Ford replied. 


254 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEKD. 


“But if there were, what then! ” 

“ In that case they must have been baptized.” 

“ TFell, ?? said Mr. Coleman, “ this shows the prac¬ 
tice of household baptism.” 

“Yes,” he replied, “where the children are old 
enough to believe.” 

“ Well, supposing there were no young children or 
infants in any of the four families mentioned; yet, 
since it was their practice to baptize households upon 
the faith of the parents, the Apostles must have found 
infants in some of the families thus baptized, in which 
case, according to your own showing, the children must 
have been baptized.” 

“It is all mere inference,” said Mr. Ford. “No 
proof, and I insist that the silence of the new Testa¬ 
ment is against it.” 

Mr. Coleman was amused at this blind positiveness 
of Mr. Ford, and replied: “My good sir, there is no 
mention of female communion in the New Testament, 
nor the least allusion to it. Now I wish to know if 
this silence is proof against it. I believe you admit 
the female portion of your Church to the communion.” 

“ Yes, we do,” he replied. 

“Then it follows that your argument and practice 
do not agree; for if the silence of the New Testa¬ 
ment is proof against infant baptism, it must be 
equally against female communion.” 

Mr. Ford saw that he was caught in his own trap, 
so he made no reply. 

“This silence of the New Testament, instead of 
being an argument against infant baptism, is in reality 
proof in its favor,” said Mr. Coleman. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


255 


“ Iiow can that be? ” 

“For the following reasons: First, it is an undis¬ 
puted fact, that for ages the Jews had been exceedingly 
tenacious of their religious privileges, and had been 
accustomed to place the seal of the covenant upon 
their offspring.” 

“ Yes, that is an undoubted fact,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ Well, in the second place, it is morally certain 
that if the Apostles had adopted a new rule, one ex¬ 
cluding children from covenant privileges, it would 
have created great dissatisfaction, and awakened con¬ 
troversy. Could such a state of things have existed, 
and not find record in the Acts of the Apostles? The 
Jewish converts had no objection to baptism, because 
that had been practiced for ages, in connection with 
circumcision. But they were not only unwilling to 
give up circumcision for themselves, but insisted that 
the Gentiles, too, should be circumcised. All this 
comes out in the narrative, but no voice of murmur 
is heard that the children were debarred from covenant 
privileges, and for the simple reason they were not 
thus excluded.” 

“ That looks reasonable,” said Mr. Ennis. 

“But this is not all,” Mr. Coleman continued, 
“ suppose the covenant of which circumcision was the 
seal, was to be abolished by the coming of Christ, and 
a new covenant adopted, excluding children: What 
course would be needful to bring it about? Silence on 
the part of the Apostles would not be sufficient to 
effect the change. There would be but one way to 
accomplish it, and that would be by a special command, 
for silence would have sanctioned the ancient usage.” 


256 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“That is a fact,” again interposed Mr. Ennis. 
“ Strange that I had never thought of it before.” 

“Did I understand you that baptism had always 
been practiced among the Jews, in connection with 
circumcision?” Mr. Lee inquired. 

“ You did.” 

“ That is new to me; I don’t think I ever heard it 
mentioned before.” 

“ It is a fact not generally known, but it is well 
established in Jewish history. Baptism had always 
been practiced in connection with circumcision. Every 
female infant was baptized, and every male child bap¬ 
tized and circumcised. This was particularly true of 
the children of proselytes from the Gentiles, who were 
always connected with their parents in the rites of 
both circumcision and baptism. The mother and her 
daughters were baptized, and the father and his sons 
both circumcised and baptized.” 

“ Was that so? ” said Mr. Ford. 

“ If we may credit the truth of the Rabbinical writ¬ 
ers,” said Mr. Coleman, “ and I believe no one doubts 
their truthfulness as historians. And after all, what 
is Christianity itself but a system of proselytism to 
the God of the Hebrew Church? How, since this 
system of proselytism had been going on for ages, 
gathering into the Jewish Church believing Gentiles, 
and their infant offspring, it is, I think, clear that 
when the Hew Dispensation came in, and Christ our 
wassover was slain for us, the custom would run on 
into this revised Abrahamic church, unless prohibited 
by a special enactment, of which we have no mention 
in the Scriptures. But, on the other hand, the lan- 


Fig. 5. — Lauretius Baptizing Romanus. 



This representation is in the Church of Lawrence, extra muros 
at Rome. The jugs and vases are remarkable, being the same 
as in other pictures of far remoter antiquity. The action of 
pouring is the same, and by an ecclesiastic. Lawrence, the martyr 
preacher, is depicted as formally administering baptism in a 
regular baptistry by pouring. (See Chapters IX and X.) 

































* 
























































































































* 


















♦ 





























































































ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


257 


guage used by the Apostles is just such as we would 
expect from men favoring the ancient custom. Thus 
Peter says: ‘The promise is to you and your children 
(as Jews), and to all that are afar oif (as Gentiles.)’ ” 

Mr. Ford had never looked at these facts in their 
bearing upon this question, and hence they were in a 
manner new to him, and he was unprepared for any 
reply. ' 

“"Well; what about it being a relic of popery?” 
Mr. Ennis inquired, for he wanted to hear what could 
be said on that topic, for it was the position he him¬ 
self had held till this debate had silenced some of his 
other objections. 

Mr. Ford answered: “ Yes, that is one of the objec¬ 
tions I have always urged against it, for it has always 
seemed to me to have much weight.” 

“What proof can you bring to substantiate the 
charge,” said Mr. Coleman, “ for a charge like that is 
an implied reproach upon all the Protestant churches 
practicing infant baptism, and should never be made 
without facts to sustain it.” 

“ What I consider good proof is the fact that it was 
in universal practice in the Roman Catholic Church, 
from a very early date. When the Reformers broke 
away from that church, this is one of the practices 
they brought away with them.” 

“ Do you understand the object of the reformers to 
have been a reformation of the abuses of the Catholic 
Church, in regard to doctrine and practice, rather than 
of its hierarchal government? ” 

“ I understand their object was to correct the abuses 
of the Papacy, in doctrine and practice,” he replied. 
17 * 


258 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“With this object in view, do you not think they 
would have rejected infant baptism, if they had really 
thought it was one of the errors and abuses of that 
church ? ” 

“ Eeally, I should suppose they would.” 

“ And yet they did not.” 

“Yes.” . 

“And.simply because, as intelligent men, they did 
not consider this as one of the inventions of popery,” 
said Mr. Coleman. He continued: “ Now, while we 
all agree that the Eoman Catholic Church has fallen 
into many errors and abuses, do they not retain many 
truths?” 

Mr. Ford replied: “I am far from saying they have 
lost all truth; but many truths still held by them have 
been so perverted as to become the most pernicious 
forms of error.” 

“ Would you throw these truths away because they 
had been so perverted ? ” 

“ Certainly not, but I would carefully separate them 
from error and abuse, and restore them to their proper 
place in a correct Bible theology,” Mr. Ford answered. 

“ In that we agreed,” said Mr. Coleman, “ but is it 
not possible that infant baptism is one of the truths 
so perverted? ” 

“ It is possible ,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ You believe ( baptismal regeneration 5 to be one of 
these perversions, and in that I agree with you. They 
supposed some spiritual, regenerating power really 
attended the outward baptism, and thus the ordinance 
grew into a superstition. Thus they made quite too 
much of it, attributing to the outward rite a regen- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


259 


erating power that belongs only to the spiritual 
baptism.” 

To this Mr. Ford replied: “Possibly I have been 
prejudiced against infant baptism, as such, from seeing 
the abuse of it, as I said once before.” 

“ You said the Catholic Church had practiced infant 
baptism from a very early date?” 

“ Yes.” 

“ How early? ” 

“ As near as I can learn, from the second century.” 

“ That is, from one to two hundred years after the 
birth of Christ? ” 

“ Yes; somewhere between those dates.” 

“ Do you learn that it was practiced pretty gener¬ 
ally, at that time? ” 

“ Yes, I think quite generally. The idea of bap¬ 
tismal regeneration crept into the church, and believ¬ 
ing in infant depravity, they were anxious for infant 
regeneration, and so the practice of infant baptism 
came in with it.” 

“ Do you think infant baptism an innovation upon 
the form of the rite merely, or upon its essential 
principles? ” 

“ I think it is an innovation upon the essential 
principles of the rite,” Mr. Ford replied. 

“ Do you learn that there was any controversy, in 
those early times, over the question of baptizing 
infants? ” 

“ Turtullian, in the third century, opposed infant 
baptism.” 

“ Did any one oppose it at an earlier date? ” 

u I think not.” 


260 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“That is,” said Mr. Coleman, “no one opposed it 
till it had been in universal practice for over one hun¬ 
dred years.” 

“ I think there is no record of any opposition before 
Turtullian.” 

“Well, did he oppose it on the ground of its being 
an innovation upon the form or essential principles of 
the rite?” 

“ No,” said Mr. Ford, “ he advised delay to a late 
period of life, lest the baptized should fall into sin, 
and thus lose the benefit of the rite.” 

“ Don’t you think he would have opposed it as an 
innovation upon the essential principles of the rite, if 
he had thought it such? ” 

“ Eeally, I should suppose he would.” 

“And yet he did not.” 

“No.” 

“How soon after Turtullian’s time did any one else 
oppose it? ” 

“ I believe no one opposed it till the rise of the 
Anabaptists, in Germany, and after the Eeformation 
under Luther.” 

After this colloquy, Mr. Coleman said: “Please 
look at two facts, historically apparent in the early 
church: 

“First. Christianity spread with great rapidity into 
the remotest provinces of the Eoman Empire, under 
the labors of the Apostles and their immediate suc¬ 
cessors. 

“ Second. Soon after this, the church was divided 
into sects on trifling points of difference upon ques¬ 
tions of abstract theology.” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


261 


u I think you are correct,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ Let us now sum up the evidence,” said Mr. Cole¬ 
man. “ You have made the following admissions: 

“First. Infant baptism was practiced as early as 
the second century, generally, if not universally. 

“ Second . That it met with no opposition for one 
hundred years after it became general, and then not 
on the ground of its being an innovation, but for 
reasons growing out of the idea of baptismal regen¬ 
eration. 

“ Third. You think it an innovation upon the essen¬ 
tial principles of the rite, and therefore a fatal error. 

“ISTow, Brother Ford, when we take into considera¬ 
tion all the facts we have just elicited, can you , or can 
any sensible man , believe that an innovation upon the 
essential principles of so important a rite as baptism, 
could take place at an age so near the Apostles, become 
general, and yet meet with no opposition, and create 
no controversy? Can it be possible that all the sects 
spread over the wide extent of the .Roman Empire 
should have silently adopted an error so fatal as you 
think infant baptism to be, and yet create no contro¬ 
versy; when the records of those times reveal heated 
controversies on questions of trifling importance com¬ 
pared to this, if it is such an error as you think it to 
be? The idea is simply preposterous, too preposterous 
to be entertained for a moment.” 

“ I think there is a deal of force in that argument,” 
said Mr. Lee, addressing the other members of the 
committee. 

Mr. Coleman continued: “But to get a clearer view 
of the difficulties in the way of introducing so im- 


262 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


portant an innovation as this, let us suppose the con¬ 
stitution and articles of faith of all the Apostolic 
Churches to he the same as those of Baptist Churches 
in our day. ]^ow, let some zealous advocate of infant 
baptism try to introduce the practice. He would have 
the argument of church history against him; for sup¬ 
pose him to he the originator of the practice, he would 
have no precedent in its favor. He would be asked, 
Did the Apostles practice it? Ho. Why then do 
you introduce it? Are you wiser than the Apostles? 
Such would be the difficulties he would surely en¬ 
counter, and should he persist in his efforts, it would 
certainly awaken controversy. 

“ The argument we draw from the Hew Testament 
records would avail him nothing, for it could not be 
supposed that a Bible ordinance could fall into entire 
disuse any more than an unauthorized one could come 
into general use und favor. Either supposition is a 
moral impossibility It comes then to a moral demon¬ 
stration, that infant baptism could not have had its 
origin in imposture, or in the invention of men. It 
must, therefore, have come down to us from the Apos¬ 
tles, and by the authority of Christ himself.’’ 

This argument was so conclusive that Messrs. Ennis 
and Lee both nodded a most emphatic assent. Mr. 
Ford remained silent. What could he say? He could 
not be insensible to the force of the facts presented. 
Whatever the working of his own mind, he would not 
yet commit himself, but patiently wait and weigh any 
further arguments that Mr. Coleman may offer. So 
that gentleman said: 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEFIIERD. 


263 


“ From what time do historians date the rise of the 
papacy ? ” 

“ From the middle of the sixth century,” he replied. 

“Exactly; but it seems that infant baptism had 
been in practice four hundred years before that time, 
by your own confession. How can you, then, call it 
a relic of popery? Why not call it a relic of Apostolic 
superstition? That would come as near the truth as 
the other.” 

“ Hot much popery in that! ” said Mr. Lee; “ and 
it is evident that the charge is unfounded.” 

Mr. Coleman continued: “ It appears, from your 
own admissions, Brother Ford, that infant baptism 
was practiced at a very early date, and in this you are 
borne out by the history of those times. But you 
have assumed the very thing that needs proving, 
which is, that infant baptism was introduced after the 
Apostolic age. You have, however, brought no single 
fact to prove it, and for the best of reasons,— there 
is none, while all the testimony is in its favor.” 




CHAPTER XTII. 


IfjffifC R. COLEMAN continued: “I shall now take 
the position that infant baptism has come 
down to us, in unbroken succession, from the 
Apostles themselves, and I intend to bring unimpeach¬ 
able testimony to prove it. The voice of ecclesiastical 
history is not silent on this point; I will adduce the 
testimony of the ‘ Fathers of the Church,’ as they 
are sometimes called. They were the prominent 
Christian writers of the second, third and fourth 
centuries.” 

“ What! the men who advocated baptismal regener¬ 
ation?” said Mr. Ford. “I should not suppose you 
would rely on them.” 

“ Yes, sir, the same; and however much we may 
question their theological speculations, their truthful¬ 
ness as historians has never been called in question. 
Their works, from Justin Martyr to Augustine, are 
in our best libraries, and in reference to their histori¬ 
cal statements, stand entirely above criticism. These 
fathers wrote before popery had an existence, and they 
give us clear views of infant baptism, as it stands his¬ 
torically related to the times of the Apostles.’' 

“ Do you mean to say that they bear testimony that 
infant baptism came from the Apostles themselves, 
and by their order?” said Mr. Ford. 

“I do,” he replied, “and I will begin with Augus¬ 
tine and Pelagius. They lived at the same time, and 
( 264 ) 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


265 


a little more than three hundred years after the Apos¬ 
tles. They were both learned and prominent men in 
the church, but they differed widely on the question of 
native depravity. Augustine held to the doctrine of 
infant depravity, as it has been commonly held since 
his day, while Pelagius took the opposite view, and 
opposed the doctrine. 

“Augustine, in his plea, asks: 6 Why are infants bap¬ 
tized for the remission of sin, if they have no sin?’ at 
the same time intimating to Pelagius that if he would 
be consistent with himself, his denial must draw after 
it the denial of infant baptism. At length it was 
reported that Pelagius was so heretical as to deny 
infant baptism. 

“ Now, mark the answer that Pelagius himself gives 
to this charge: ‘ Baptism ought to be administered to 
infants with the same sacramental words which are 
used in the case of adult persons. Men slander me, 
as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants. 1 
never heard of any , not even the most impious heri- 
tic, who denied baptism to infants.’ 

“ Mr. Moderator, Brethern of the Committee, and 
Brother Ford: I wish you to take notice that Pelagius 
lived near the Apostolic age, and was familiar with the 
history of the churches, and yet he never heard of any 
who denied baptism to infants. 

“ But you will notice how this historical fact is 
borne out in the reply of Augustine to this confession 
of Pelagius. He says: ‘Since they grant that infants 
must be baptized, as not being able to resist the 
authority of the whole church, which was doubt¬ 
lessly delivered by our Lord and His Apostles , they 


266 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPIIERD. 


must grant that they stand in need of the benefit of 
the Mediator. 5 

“On another occasion, Augustine remarks: ‘The 
custom of our mother church, in baptizing infants, 
must not be disregarded, nor accounted needless, nor 
believed to be anything else than an ordinance deliv¬ 
ered to us from the Apostles ' 55 

“ Here, then, 55 Mr. Coleman resumed, “ are two men 
who give it as an admitted historic fact, that infant 
baptism came directly from Christ and his Apostles. 

“But let us go nearer to the Apostolic age and 
see how this matter stands. In the year 253, a council 
of sixty-six bishops or pastors, of as many churches, of 
Africa, was held at Carthage, in which the noted Cyp- 
kian presided as Moderator. To this council Fidus, 
a country pastor, sent this question: ‘ Whether, in the 
baptism of infants, it was necessary to wait until the 
eighth day, as was the ancient custom of circumcision, 
or whether they might be baptized at an earlier 
period? 5 

“ How, brethern, please to note two facts brought 
out in this historic statement. First. In the opinion 
of the Christians of that age, baptism took the place 
of circumcision, or was Christian circumcision/ and, 
Second. That infant baptism was right and proper. 

“ Passing back nearer to the Apostolic age, we find 
Okegen, who was born only eighty-five years after the 
death of the Apostle John. He was a man of great 
learning and extensive travel, and was also favored 
with a Christian ancestry and education. He was, 
therefore, better prepared to know the truth on this 
subject than any other man of that age. In one of 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


267 


his homilies he makes this statement : ‘ The custom of 
baptizing infants was derived from the Apostles .’ 

“ In his comments on Bomans, book 5th, he makes 
this explicit statement: ‘For this cause it was that the 
church received an order from the Apostles to give 
baptism to infants .’ ” 

“ IIow this testimony multiplies,” said Mr. Ennis. 
“ I had no idea of these facts before.” 

“ But, I have yet other testimony,” said Mr. Cole¬ 
man, ‘‘going still nearer the Apostolic age. Irena:us, 
who was born before the death of St. John, expressly 
says: ‘ The church learned, from the Apostles , to bap¬ 
tize infants .’ 

“Again, in his book against heretics, he says: ‘ For 
he (Christ) came to save all persons by himself; all, I 
mean, w T lio by him are regenerated unto God; infants, 
and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder 
persons.'’ By the term regenerated, he evidently 
meant baptized, as is expressed in the sentence: ‘ They 
are regenerated, in the same way of regeneration in 
which we have been regenerated, for they have been 
washed with water in the name of the Father and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ 

“ Here, Mr. Moderator, is a man, living close up to 
the Apostolic age, as close as we do to the days of the 
revolutionary war. He was also a student under 
Polycarp, of Smyrna, who himself, also, was a student 
or parishioner of the Apostle John; and he states it 
as a fact, that ‘ the church learned from the Apostles 
to baptize children.’ I ask you, sir; I ask Brother 
Ford, if he could be mistaken?” 


268 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ If we reject such testimony as this, I do not see 
how we can believe anything,” said the Moderator. 

Mr. Coleman continued: “ Let us now pass up 
still nearer to the time of the Apostles, to Justin 
Martyr. He was the earliest of the Christian 
writers after the Apostles, whose writings have come 
down to us. In his first Apology to the Emperor 
Antonius Pius, he says: ‘Several persons among us, 
of sixty and seventy years of age, of both sexes, who 
were discipled to Christ in their childhood, do remain 
uncorrupted.’ 

“ Those at all acquainted with the writings of the 
Fathers are not at a loss to know what they meant by 
6 discipling to Christ? It was the act of consecrating 
them to Christ in baptism. 

“Here was a man, writing just after the death of 
the Apostle John, who declares there were persons 
then living faithful who were discipled , or baptized, 
in childhood. And this, as a historic fact, carries the 
practice up into the Apostolic age. 

“ This Apology is said to have been written in the 
year 140. Seventy years earlier would carry us up to 
the year 70, or some twenty-six years before the Apos¬ 
tle John wrote the Eevelation, and before he wrote 
either his Gospel or Epistles. 

“ It follows, therefore, according to this statement 
of Justin, that the Apostle John lived and taught at 
the very time these children were baptized.” 

“ Let us sum up this evidence,” said Mr. Coleman. 
“Here we have men living just after the days of the 
Apostles — men of great learning and extensive re¬ 
search, and who certainly had the means of knowing 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


269 


what the truth was on this question; and they gave 
it, not as a matter of speculation, or theory, but as an 
historic fact , that children were baptized twenty-six 
years before John wrote the Boole, of Revelation. 
They assert that ‘ the Church received an order from 
the Apostles to give baptism to infants .’ They testify 
that ‘ infant baptism was practiced by the whole 
Church , and that the authority to do so was deliv¬ 
ered by our Lord and his Apostles ,’ and that ‘ they 
never heard of any , even the most impious heretic y 
who denied baptism to infants .’ 

“Now, Brother Ford, you can, if you will, treat 
these historic facts as fictions. You can turn your 
back upon the clear teaching of the Divine Word, 
and leaye the lambs on the outside of the fold, 
exposed to the ravages of the devouring wolf; but 
you must not blame me if I follow in the foot¬ 
steps of the early Church. You must not blame me 
if I give heed to the words of Augustine, when he 
says, i The custom of the Church , in baptizing in- 
fants , must not be disregarded , nor accounted need¬ 
less , nor believed to be anything else than an ordi¬ 
nance delivered to us from the Apostles .’ ” 

“ Where have I been all my life,” said Mr. Ennis, 
“ that the knowledge of these facts have never come 
to me before? I really believe it my duty to have 
my children baptized, and so follow in the footsteps 
of the early Christians.” 

“ But would you deprive your children of the privi¬ 
lege of choosing for themselves? ” said Mr. Ford. 

This objection seemed to stagger Mr. Ennis. There 
was something so subtle and plausible in it, that he 



270 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


knew not what answer to make. Mr. Coleman saw 
his perplexity, and at once came to liis relief. 

“ Was circumcision put off to adult years, to enable 
Abraham’s children to choose for themselves?” 

The snare was broken, and Mr. Ennis felt relieved. 

Mr. Coleman continued: “There is a subtle skepti¬ 
cism in that objection. That you may see it in its 
true light, let me suppose a parallel case. Why will 
you teach your children the truths of Christianity and 
thus bias their minds, and prepossess them in its 
favor? Why not leave them to themselves, untaught, 
till they have grown up, and then let them choose for 
themselves? ” 

“Such a course would be wicked; it would be a 
criminal neglect of duty,” Mr. Ennis replied. ^ 

“ But we should train our children, and teach them 
the fear of the Lord; and then, when they are old 
enough to understand what baptism means, let them 
go forward on their own profession, and choose the 
mode which their own convictions shall decide to be 
right,” said Mr. Ford. 

“ Your argument is very plausible,” Mr. Coleman 
answered, “ but it seems to me to have an element of 
unbelief in it. You assume that after the most care¬ 
ful training on your part, your efforts will result in 
failure. That is, you doubt the truth that Solomon 
laid down when he said, 6 Train up a child in the 
way he should go, and when he is old (i. e ., come to 
manhood), he will not depart from it .’ This doubt 
is the trouble.” 

“ Well ” said Mr. Ford,"“ when we look around and 
see how many children of godly parents are wicked, 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEED. 271 

and reject their counsel, have we not reason to 
doubt?” 

“Where such results follow, it is evidence that 
those children were not trained in the way they should 
go. The doubt should be, whether the training was 
what it ought to have been, not the uncertainty of the 
result. There is much ignorance and confusion in 
the minds of many good people in respect to this 
question; and such failures as you have referred to, 
are in every case the result of parental unfaithful¬ 
ness. If professing Christians were as anxious for 
the salvation of their children, and were as wise 
and painstaking as they are to secure worldly good, 
there would never be any failure. Profession is 
nothing here; possession is everything. Let the 
inner and outer life of the parents be what it 
should, and let these be joined with that wise and dis¬ 
creet oversight of their habits and associations, and 
coupled with earnest daily prayer for their spiritual 
welfare, and there is no failure.” 

“ Well, all that may take place without baptizing 
them,” persisted Mr. Ford. 

“That is, you may do all your duty to your children, 
except in one respect. You may train them, but you 
must keep them outside of the fold. The truth is, 
Brother Ford, there is an utter inconsistency in the 
position you take; and you take it to avoid a difficulty 
which is fanciful and unreal. 

“ Let us put this question in the shape of a syllogism, 
and see how it looks. 

“ If infant baptism is of divine appointment, then 
it is our duty to have our children baptized. But 


272 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


infant baptism is of divine appointment, as I have 
clearly shown. 

“ Therefore, it is the duty of Christian parents to 
have their children baptized. 

“ To say that God has instituted infant consecration 
in the ordinance of baptism, and then set up the plea 
that it is unimportant whether we obey a divine com¬ 
mand or not, or to say that obedience takes away the 
liberty of the child to choose for itself, is at once in¬ 
consistent and rebellious. The wrong lies in the 
dissatisfaction. As well might an unconverted person 
say that because God requires repentance and faith as 
a condition of salvation, he is deprived the privilege of 
going to heaven in his own way. To cavil with the 
requirements of God in the one case, is as absurd as 
it would be in the other. 

“ No, Brother Ford, the difficulty does not lie in 
the ordinance itself, but in our ignorance and misap¬ 
prehension of it.” 

Mr. Coleman continued: k ‘ I have but one more 
remark to make on this subject, and that is— that no 
persons are ever dissatisfied with their infant baptism 
who have been properly instructed in regard to the 
nature and design of the ordinance; and who have 
had any fair explanation of those passages of Scrip¬ 
ture bearing on that subject. 

“And let me add, in all kindness, to those who 
have stirred up doubt, that this skepticism is largely 
due to the officiousness of those who, under a mistaken 
idea of duty, have stirred up this element of doubt 
and unbelief, where it would never have appeared but 
for such interference.” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


273 


“ But, after all, we have to deal with matters of 
fact,” said Mr. Ford. “Bight or wrong, there are 
very many who have been baptized in infancy who 
are dissatisfied with their infant baptism, and who 
conscientiously think it their duty to go forward in 
baptism upon their own profession of faith. Now, 
what is to be done in such cases?” 

“What such persons need, is not a re-baptism, for 
that is, in reality, unnecessary, but they need full and 
faithful instruction upon this point. Kind Christian 
instruction, by a competent person, will remove doubt, 
in nine cases out of ten.” 

“ But suppose in the tenth case, the person, after all 
you should say, still remains dissatisfied, what then?” 

“ Well,” said Mr. Coleman, “ I do not know that any 
harm would come if he should be re-baptized. If 
there was still a doubt, and that doubt could be re¬ 
moved by a re-baptism, itw T ould be better to re-baptize 
him, than to permit him to nourish his discontent.” 

“Do I understand you to say that if such a case 
should happen under your pastoral supervision, you 
would re-baptize the person?” Mr. Ford inquired. 

“ I most certainly w r ould,” said Mr. Coleman. “ But 
I would tell the person kindly that I understood it as 
are-baptism; and that my own personal convictions 
were that infant baptism was sufficient. I would tell 
all such disaffected persons that by their infant bap¬ 
tism, they were already in covenant relation to the 
general church; but that if it would better meet their 
convictions of duty personally to re-consecrate them¬ 
selves in that ordinance, I would re-baptize them.” 

“ I was not aware that you would take so practical 

18 


274 ONE FOLD AND ONE SIIEFIIEED. 

a view of this question,” Mr. Ford replied. But I 
think you are different from very many Pedobaptist 
ministers of my acquaintance. When I have im¬ 
mersed those who have been sprinkled in infancy, 
they have called it a wicked act.” 

“ But when you did so, you did not regard their 
infant consecration in that ordinance, as baptism, and 
so you did not consider it a re-baptism. I myself 
consider it needless in the strict sense of that term, 
and would re-baptize, on the principle that Paul cir¬ 
cumcised Timothy; to avoid a greater evil, or to open 
the way for a good, that could not be reached in any 
better way.” 

“ I wish it, however, to be understood,” said Mr. 
Coleman, “ that if I thought it would be really wrong 
to re-baptize, under the circumstances I have named, I 
would not do it; but I cannot see that any harm could 
grow out of it; and if a doubt can be settled by a 
re-baptism, then let the re-baptism take place.” 

These discussions had the effect to settle the ques¬ 
tion so thoroughly in the minds of Messrs. Ennis and 
Lee, that the bar to their uniting in the proposed 
church organization was entirely removed. 

The effect of these discussions was also equally 
marked upon Mr. Ford himself, as the sequel will 
show. He did not, however, make any demonstra¬ 
tions at the time. But a regiment of thoughts kept 
trooping through his mind; and a great conflict was 
going on. Those subtle ties, that we call “ denomina¬ 
tional prepossessions,” “and associations,” have a 
wonderful power over the mind, and it is no easy 
work to break away from them. To many, it seems 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


275 


almost like deserting Christ. It is only after much 
deliberation, and when we become conscious that we 
have been in error, and such error as demands a 
change from a denominational to an undenomina¬ 
tional platform, that we can forsake father and mother, 
brother and sister, for the sake of honoring Christ, 
and more fully confessing him. When the thought 
comes up, wliat will the brethren, with whom I have 
always associated, think and say? Will they not 
misunderstand me? and if they do not arraign my 
motives, will they not be grieved if I leave them? 
These were questions that pressed themselves upon 
Mr. Ford. 

Another class of facts also pressed upon him. Thus, 
“ I am satisfied that 1 have been mistaken in regard 
to this whole question of baptism; my views have 
been too narrow; I have put up bars between myseli 
and other Christian men, and have practically treated 
them as if I thought them sinners, and outside the 
Clnirch. I now see that they were right, and I was 
wrong. In coming out on an undenominational and 
truly catholic platform, I shall not be forsaking my 
former associates as Christians; I shall only forsake 
them as Baptists. Shall I do so? I will; for I shall 
then place myself in new fraternal relations with all 
Evangelical Christians. And when my motives are 
understood, even my Baptist brethren will honor me 
for the position I am constrained to take. I shall not 
love them the less, but the members of other churches 
more.” 

Such were the thoughts that were agitating his 
mind, when Mr. Coleman began to make a brief sum- 


276 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


mary of the points that had been established in this 
discussion of infant baptism. “ In this discussion I 
think,” said he, “all the objections of Brother Ford 
against infant baptism have been answered satisfac¬ 
torily to the committee, and I trust to Brother Ford 
himself. 

“We have demonstrated the following points: 

“ 1. That infants sustain the same relation to Christ 
and his kingdom as do adult believers; and that He 
regards and treats them as such, and requires his 
Church to do the same. That by recognizing them 
as infant members of his kingdom and placing its 
distinctive seal, which is baptism, upon them, we 
bring them into a visible covenant relation to Him 
and his Church; and by so doing, we bring all the 
restraints from sin on the one hand, to bear upon the 
infant mind, and all the encouragements to obedience 
on the other, that adult Christians enjoy in the Chris¬ 
tian life; and that this will aid in their Christian 
nurture. 

“ 2. We have demonstrated the fact that the Church 
or Kingdom of God is one, and the same in all 
ages/ that the Christian Church is the same as the 
Abraliamic or Jewish, in a new and revised form , 
with whatever was typical of Christ and his work 
realized in the Anti-type. 

That Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are but revised 
forms of circumcision and the Paschal Supper; and 
answering the same general ends which those ordinances 
did. That by the appointment of God, infants were 
made members of his Church under the Old Dispen¬ 
sation, and that the law which made them such, 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


277 


remains unrepealed, and in the nature of the case 
unrepealable, and in force to-day; and by consequence, 
that the seal of membership should be placed upon 
them. 

“ 3. That infant church membership, and conse¬ 
quently infant baptism, has been the practice of the 
Church from the days of the Apostles. And, finally, 
that this practice was in obedience to the command 
of Christ. 

“And now, Mr. Moderator and Brethren of the 
Committee, allow me to say, in conclusion, that these 
several points have been demonstrated by the most 
explicit testimony from the Bible and Church history; 
and that the practice of baptizing children is in har¬ 
mony with a great fundamental principle of natural 
and moral law, without which the civil , social and 
moral welfare of the race could not be maintained.”* 

* The reader may have gained the impression that the apparent 
triumphs of Messrs. Coleman and Lovell were owing more to 
superior talent and tact on their part, than to the intrinsic merit 
of the views they advocated. I would enter my protest to any 
such inference. Mr. Ford was the peer of either of those gen¬ 
tlemen in talent and general intelligence. No amount of talent 
can make a bad cause appear good when meeting an equal intel¬ 
ligence on the other side. The result reached must be attributed 
wholly to the fact that Messrs. Coleman and Lovell had given 
the subject more thorough investigation, and that they had truth 
on their side. No one knowingly embraces error. That we fall 
into it, is the simple result of our ignorance of opposing facts. 
We reason and reach conclusions upon partial testimony. Hence 
we come to erroneous conclusions. It therefore happens that we 
change our opinions when new and convincing light is shed 
upon subjects of debate. 


278 ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

It is fitting that two reflections should close this 
chapter: 

First —Infant baptism, like all other good things, 
has been misunderstood, abused, and turned into a 
superstition; and it is the abuse of the ordinance 
that has been the cause of the skepticism and doubt 
"^^n regard to it. To accomplish God’s purpose in its 
institution, its nature, design, and the grand reasons 
- its appointment, should be carefully studied and 

understood. 

Second —The value of infant baptism lies mainly 
in the use made of it, in the work of training children 
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It re¬ 
quires consecrated hearts, and great parental faithful¬ 
ness to secure its full benefits. 

Third —What responsibilities does this subject lay 
upon parents, and guardians, and upon the Churches. 
And what a glorious field for work, in training the 
lambs of the flock for Christ, does it open. As the 
Church reaches a higher plane of Christian intelli¬ 
gence and spiritual life, the wisdom of this ordinance 
will be more and more appreciated. 


OHAPTEE XVIII. 


t HE hour was so late when the discussions closed 
that the Committee had no time to prepare 
their report. There were also some minor con¬ 
siderations to be discussed and agreed upon, which 
would aid in the future harmony and usefulness of the 
Church. They therefore adjourned, to meet again at 
the same hour on the next evening. 

The success attending their deliberations and discus¬ 
sions was such as to assure them that a Church could 
be organized on such a basis that all who love the 
Lord Jesus Christ, in the neighborhood, could unite 
with it. 

It was not the wish of Messrs. Benson and Lovell 
to make their own peculiar views part of a Church 
creed, that they had engaged in the foregoing discus¬ 
sions, but rather to remove prejudices, and prepare the 
way for Christian charity and unity upon questions 
not vital to character. In reference to the subjects 
and mode of baptism, there might still be a diversity 
of opinion. Nor was a perfect agreement upon this 
question essential to unity, so long as each person was 
free to follow his own convictions of duty. 

If they were to adopt articles of belief, these should 
set forth only those doctrines of the Bible which must 
be accepted before any one can come to Christ. Thus: 
The unity, perfections and sovereignty of God; the 
universal sinfulness of man; the divinity of Christ, 
( 279 ) 


280 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


as God manifest in the flesh; his atoning and media¬ 
torial work; and the regenerating and sanctifying 
work of the Holy Spirit. Upon these great truths 
the Christian world are agreed. All doubtful and dis¬ 
puted questions should be left to the convictions of 
those entertaining them. 

Again: while articles of faith may set forth the re¬ 
ligious views of the Church adopting them, yet even 
assent to them should not be made a condition of 
receiving members to the communion of the Church. 
The only question to be raised should be this: Does 
the applicant have true faith in Christ as a personal 
divine Redeemer and Savior, and is he honestly trying 
to do the will of God; and does he give evidence of 
love to Christ and the brethren? This being the case, 
he should be received. The candidate may be ignorant 
of Biblical truth in a measure, and his religious ex¬ 
perience that of an infant; but with elements of the 
Christian life in him, he should be received, and that 
life nourished. With an intelligent and faithful pas¬ 
tor, and warm Christian love among the members of 
the Church, all needful doctrinal harmony will take 
place. 

The next evening brought the Committee together 
at the appointed hour. On taking the chair, the Mod¬ 
erator invited Rev. Mr. Ford to open the meeting with 
reading the Scriptures and prayer. In the performance 
of this duty he read the one hundred and thirty-third 
Psalm. “ Behold how good and how pleasant it is for 
brethren to dwell together in unity,” etc. His prayer 
was deeply pathetic and earnest. Craving pardon for 
the imperfections and failures of the past, and asking 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


281 


that the Committee should be divinely aided in the 
work before them, and that the Church soon to be 
organized might prove a lasting benefit to the entire 
community. 

After the prayer he asked the privilege of making 
a few remarks before the Committee should proceed 
with their work. He wanted them to know just what 
the result of last evening’s discussion was upon his 
mind. The Moderator invited him to proceed, and 
so he spoke as follows: 

“ Dear Brethren of the Committee, and all present: 
As you know, I have always been a Baptist in my 
views. My early training, and my religious associa¬ 
tions have undoubtedly had much to do in moulding 
my opinions. But during all these years I have seen 
and lamented the divisions existing among Christians. 
I have seen their weakening power upon the work of 
the Church, the waste of material and strength, the 
jealousies and rivalries, often breaking out into strife 
between Churches of different denominations, the skep¬ 
ticism produced in the minds of unconverted men, 
from observing these things. And it is a problem over 
which I have spent many an anxious hour in deep 
thought. How can these evils be removed, and sectarian¬ 
ism and denominationalism be done away, so that the 
entire Christian world may be brought into doctrinal 
harmony, and true Christian organic unity, as it was 
in the Apostolic age? And strange as it may seem to 
you, and strange as it seems to myself now, I have 
always thought and argued that it could only be accom¬ 
plished by the conversion of the Christian world to 
Baptist’s views. I now see and confess my mistake. 


282 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


Organic unity can never take place on the present plat¬ 
form of the Baptist Churches. Our views are too 
narrow and dogmatic. We have, in attempting to 
adhere so closely to the letter , wrought at the expense 
of the spirit of love and Christian unity. I now see 
that there is a higher standpoint from which'to look 
at this question. The discussions of last evening, and 
the evening before, have led me to this discovery. I 
now see baptism in a new light. My views are 
changed. The arguments of Brothers Lovell and Cole¬ 
man are unanswerable. As a Baptist, I could quibble 
and raise false issues about them, but I cannot over¬ 
throw them, because they are the teachings of the 
Word of God. They bring us back to the views and 
practice of the Apostolic Churches. I now wish to 
extend to you all the right hand of fellowship upon 
this old platform of Christian unity.” 

So saying, he took the hand of the Moderator and 
each of the brethren present, in turn, in token of his 
Christian sympathy and love. 

The scene was very affecting. Tears of sympathy 
and joy were in the eyes of all present. A new bond 
of union was making itself felt. 

After the emotion excited by this address of Mr. 
Ford had somewhat subsided, the Moderator said: 

“ Brethren, you have agreed to recommend the or¬ 
ganization of a Church of Christ on an undenomina¬ 
tional basis. To be self-governing under Christ, and 
to seek fraternal relations with all other Christian 
Churches, for mutual counsel and co-operation in work 
for the Master. 

“ It now remains for you to agree upon a Church 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


283 


constitution that shall embody the principles you have 
agreed to adopt, and to settle the question of such 
articles of faith as shall embody the views of the 
Church as to doctrinal truth. These questions are 
before you.” 

Mr. Ennis moved that the Chair appoint a commit¬ 
tee of three to prepare a constitution for the proposed 
Church, to be submitted for final approval of the 
Committee; and also that a committee of three be 
appointed in like'manner to report such articles of 
faith as would meet the views of all evangelical 
Christians. 

The motion prevailed, and Messrs. Ennis, Lyman 
and Wyman were named as the committee to prepare 
a constitution. The committee to prepare a Covenant 
and Articles of Faith were Brothers Lovell and Lee,, 
and Rev. Mr. Ford was requested to advise with them 
in its preparation. 

The General Committee then took a recess of half 
an hour, to enable the sub-committees to prepare their 
reports. 

At the expiration of the time, the General Com¬ 
mittee was called to order. Mr. Ennis, the chairman 
of the first named committee, reported the following: 


284 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


CONSTITUTION. 


ARTICLE I. 


This Church shall he known as the Church of Christ in Union 
mile. 


ARTICLE II. 


This Church adopts the following principles as the basis of its 
polity: 

1. Its members shall be composed of those, and those only, 
who give evidence that they belong to the Spiritual Body of 
Christ. 

2. It will adopt a covenant of mutual love and helpfulness, in 
which each member shall be pledged to the performance of all 
Christian duties, as he shall understand them. 

3. The Church shall be self-governing under Christ, and free 
from all ecclesiastical control, except by its own members, with 
whom the sovereign power shall be lodged. 

4. While thus independent, it will live in Christian fellowship 
with all other Christian Churches, and will seek their counsel 
and co-operation in general Christian work. 


ARTICLE III. 

The permanent officers of this Church shall be a Pastor, one 
or more Deacons, and a Clerk; to be elected by the Church for 
such periods as a majority of its members shall determine. 

The other officers shall be three or more Trustees, and a Treas¬ 
urer, all of whom shall be elected annually, or biennially, as the 
Church shall elect. 

Th q Pastor shall watch over the spiritual interests of the Church, 
preach the Gospel, administer the ordinances, and take charge 
of religious services. He shall also act as Moderator of the meet¬ 
ings of the Church, when present. 

The Deacons shall assist the Pastor in the administration of 
the ordinances and in his pastoral duties; and in his absence 
shall take charge of the religious services of the Church. They 
will also look after the poor and sick, distribute the private 
charities of the Church to them, counsel, comfort and encourage 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


285 


the tried and tempted, and take up collections for benevolent 
objects. 

The Trustees shall have charge of the pecuniary affairs of the 
Church, provide a place of worship, and hold it subject to the 
uses of the Church; superintend the raising of the Pastor’s sal¬ 
ary, and all other incidental expenses of the Church. 

The Clerk shall keep a faithful record of all the business meet¬ 
ings, and issue letters of dismission, at the direction of the 
Church. 

The Treasurer shall have charge of all the funds of the Church, 
except its private and public charities, and pay them out as it 
shall order. 

It shall be the duty of the Clerk and Treasurer each to make a 
full written report of the doings of the Church, in his department 
at each annual meeting. 

ARTICLE IY. 

Admission and Transfer of Members. 

1. Persons desirous of becoming members of this Church, 
upon profession of their faith, shall be examined, in the presence 
of the Church, at a regularly called meeting, as to their religious 
history and present Christian experience. If approved by the 
Church, they shall be received to its fellowship at its next Sab¬ 
bath meeting. But for prudential reasons, the Church may 
instruct the Pastor and Deacons to examine candidates for mem¬ 
bership in private, and report the result to the Church for its 
action. 

2. This Church will grant letters of dismission and recom¬ 
mendation of members in good standing to other evangelical 
Churches, and will receive like letters, when presented. 

3. Any member wishing to withdraw from this Church, in 
order to unite with another, must signify his wishes, and give his 
reasons for so doing; and first seek a release from his obligations 
to this Church. Any other mode of withdrawal will be deemed 
irregular and disrespectful. 

4. Members leaving the bounds of this Church, are desired to 
ask a dismission within one year, unless circumstances render 
their union with another Church inexpedient. In which case it 
will be their duty to inform this Church of their religious con- 


286 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEKD. 


dition, and the reasons why they do not ask a dismission. Mem. 
hers receiving letters will be regarded as members with us 
until notified by the Church to which they go that they have been 
duly received by them. 

5. This Church will not give letters, except to unite with some 
other Christian Church. 

ARTICLE Y. 

Discipline. 

Any member having cause of complaint against another, shall 
pursue the course laid down by the Master in the eighteenth 
chapter of Matthew. Any other course will be deemed a viola¬ 
tion of covenant obligations, and a sufficient reason for disci¬ 
pline. The object of discipline being the purity of the Church 
and the spiritual good of the erring. Every means that Chris¬ 
tian love can suggest should be used for the recovery of the 
offending member. When all such efforts prove ineffectual, the 
Church shall withdraw its fellowship, and regard him as an un¬ 
converted person, for whose salvation it will still labor. If, after 
having been disowned by the Church, he repents, and makes 
confession, he may be restored to his forfeited membership, and 
renew his covenant. 

ARTICLE YI. 

The Meetings of the Church. 

1. The annual business meeting of the Church shall be held 

on-. 

2. The Lord’s Supper shall be administered on the first Sab¬ 
bath of the following months, viz.: -. 

• 3. All special business meetings shall be notified the Sabbath 
previous, and the nature of the business stated. The wishes of 
the majority of the members present shall be authoritative. Or¬ 
dinary business meetings may be held without such notice. 

ARTICLE YII. 

By-Laws and Amendments. 

1. The Church may adopt such by-laws as shall be consistent 
with this Constitution. 




ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


287 


2. This Constitution may be altered or amended by a majority 
of two-thirds of all the members of the Church; previous notice 
of the proposed change having been publicly given: Provided , 
such change shall not infringe its organic principles. 

This report of the sub-commiteee was received, and, 
after careful examination, was unanimously adopted 
by the General Committee. 

Mr. Lovell, as chairman of his committee, reported 
tlie following: 

CONFESSION OF FAITH. 

1. As a Church of Christ, associated in accordance with the 
teachings of the New Testament, for the public worship of God, 
for the observance of the sacraments and ordinances of the Gos¬ 
pel, for mutual edification, and encouragement in the Christian 
life, and for the advancement of the Redeemer’s Kingdom, we 
declare our union in faith and love, with all who love our Lord 
Jesus Christ. 

2. Receiving the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as 
the Word of God, and as the only infallible rule of religious 
faith and practice, we confess faith in the one living and true 
God, revealed as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the 
Creator and preserver of all things. 

3. We confess our belief that all mankind are sinful, and spir¬ 
itually dead; that without the quickening, renewing, and life- 
giving power of the Holy Spirit, none will ever see the exceeding 
sinfulness of sin, or genuinely repent and turn to God, or be 
restored to holiness. 

4. We confess our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son 
of God; that for the purpose of saving the sinful and the lost, 
he took upon him our nature; that by his life of perfect obedience, 
and his death on the cross, he honored the law and bore its pen¬ 
alty, thus vindicating its essential righteousness; and thus made 
such an atonement for the sin of man, that God can be just and 
yet the justifier of those who believe. 

5. We believe that in the Gospel, salvation is freely offered to 
all men, on the condition of repentence towards God and faith in 


288 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


the Lord Jesus Christ, as a divine, and all-powerful helper, through 
the Spirit. 

6. We believe that the observance of the Lord’s day, or Sun¬ 
day, with attendance on the ministry of the Word, is binding 
upon all Christians. We also believe that the visible Church, 
the ordinances of baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, are divinely 
appointed agencies for the instruction and edification of believ¬ 
ers; and are binding upon the disciples of Christ in all time. 

7. We believe, according to the teaching of Christ, that there 
is a day appointed when God will judge the world by Christ; 
that the wicked will go away into everlasting punishment and 
the righteous into life eternal. 

Mr. Lovell then said: “ In presenting this Confes¬ 
sion of Faith, the committee have introduced only 
those fundamental truths of the Gospel which are the 
heritage of the general Church. It is proper that 
the General Committee should carefully review its 
articles. 

‘ £ I will also say, that in the opinion of the sub-com¬ 
mittee, the Apostolic Churches had no written Articles 
of Faith, for, under the teachings of the Apostles, they 
had no need of any. And now they are useful only 
as expressing the undoubted teachings of Christ. 
Your committee believe too great a reliance on written 
creeds has been the fault of the Churches in the past. 
They have been dogmatic, attempting to bind the con¬ 
science of believers to theological speculations upon 
points not clearly set forth in the Divine Word, and 
upon which Biblical students cannot agree. Hence 
they have been the cause of divisions, to the hinder- 
ance and dishonor of the Christian name. These spec¬ 
ulations the committee have sought to avoid.” 

Mr. Ennis moved that the report of the committee 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


289 


be received. The motion prevailed. The Confession 
was then carefully read, and found satisfactory to the 
General Committee. 

It only remained to fix upon a time when the Chris¬ 
tians of the neighborhood should be called together to 
hear and act upon the report of the General Com¬ 
mittee, and to take such further action as should be 
necessary, formally to organize the Church. The fol¬ 
lowing Saturday was agreed upon. So, after prayer 
by Rev. Mr. Coleman, the Committee adjourned. 

Note. —The following Covenant, adopted by the Church of 
Christ at Unionville, we here subjoin, that the reader may see 
how fully that Church consecrated itself and its worldly posses¬ 
sions to the service of God, and his cause on earth. 

“COVENANT. 

“ We, who do now unite to form this Church, hereby enter into 
covenant with each other, and with Christ, in the presence of God 
and this assembly, to take the Lord Jehovah as our present and 
eternal portion, and we do solemnly and willingly consecrate 
ourselves, and all we possess, to him and his service. 

“ Receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, we covenant to 
trust and obey him as our only Master. We will take him as our 
model, framing our lives after the pattern he set, of humility and 
meekness, and of self-denying labor for the good of each other and 
those around us. 

“We covenant to take the Holy Spirit as our guide, sanctifier 
and comforter. 

“ We also covenant to walk in fellowship with each other, cher¬ 
ishing Christian affection, giving and receiving counsel and 
kindly admonition, and striving to maintain the unity and peace 
of the Church. 

“ We likewise covenant together that we will live temperately, 
avoiding all habits of intemperance of every kind; that.we will 
live godly and sober lives; that we will guard against coveteous 
feelings and conformity to the world in dress, show, and parade; 

19 


290 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


find as stewards of the one Lord and Master, that we will use what¬ 
ever he gives us wisely for his glory, and the promotion of his 
cause in the world. 


That the readers of “ One Fold and One Shep¬ 
herd” may see how union works in other places, we 
lierewith append a brief statement of the organization 
of Bethany TJnion Church , Washington Heights, Cook 

Co., Ill. 

It was organized May 5,1872, and was composed of fourteen 
members whose previous denominational standing were as fol¬ 
lows; Protestant Episcopal, three; Free Baptist, two; Regular 
Baptists, two; Presbyterian, two; Methodist, five. 

It has since received, by letter, to February 1, 1878, as follows: 
From Congregationalists, fifteen; Regular Baptist, two; Metho¬ 
dist, two; Presbyterian, one; total, twenty. 

Received by renewal of Christian life those who had been mem¬ 
bers of difierent Churches, but had lost their standing by long 
absence and lack of interest: Protestant Episcopal, two; Metho¬ 
dist, three; Congregational, one; total, six. 

Received on profession of faith and outward evidence of a new 
life, thirty-six. 

Total membership, seventy-six; removed, eleven; leaving a 
present membership of sixty-five. 

It at first worshiped in a hall. It now has a tasty Church 
bouse, capable of holding over three hundred, built the third 
year after its organization. The Church is thoroughly evangel¬ 
ical, but broad and liberal in regard to non-essentials, and by its 
unity and Christian sympathy has won upon the regard of the 
surrounding population. Prof. D. S. Heffron has been its pastor 
from July 1,1872, to this date, March, 1878. 

The following are its Confession of Faith and Covenant. We 
commend them to the thoughtful consideration of those forming 
similar unsectarian Churches. 

“1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Tes¬ 
taments are given by inspiration of God. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


201 


“ 2. We believe that there is only one living and true God, 
the Creator of all things, and author of all beings. 

“3. We believe in Jesus, ‘ God manifested in the flesh,’ as the 
Savior of men. 

“ 4. We believe in the Holy Spirit, as equal and one with God, 
the reprover of sinners and comforter of saints. 

“ 5. We believe in the Church as a divine institution, with 
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper its visible ordinances, to be per¬ 
petuated in the Church.” 


“COVENANT. 

“ Sincerely believing that it is the duty of all who love our Lord 
and Savior, Jesus Christ, to unite with the visible Church of 
Christ: 

“And believing that we have obtained the regenerating influence 
of Divine Grace through Jesus Christ; and having been baptized 
into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and adopted 
the foregoing as our Confession of Faith: 

“We do now solemnly covenant before God, that we will strive, 
by his assisting grace, to exemplify our confession by a practice 
which will correspond to all which we have above professed; and 
we now give ourselves publicly and renewedly to God, to love 
and serve him till death, — and to be his people, to live together 
in brotherly love and union: 

“And we do solemnly covenant, to exercise a mutual Christian 
care over each other, and will faithfully labor for the promotion 
of each other’s Spiritual welfare, by fervent prayer and admo¬ 
nition ; and will seek to restore the erring in the spirit of meek¬ 
ness; and we will labor together by prayer, precept and example, 
for the salvation of sinners: 

“ We covenant to contribute of our substance for the support of 
all necessary means of Grace, and we will, as far as in our power, 
attend upon the public worship of God and the stated meetings 
of the Church, and will labor for its prosperity and up-building 
in the most holy faith: 

“ We will not forsake it in adversity, but will bear each other’s 
burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ: And may the God of 
peace sanctify us wholly, and preserve us blameless to the coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may join the glorified about 


292 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


the Throne in ascribing Blessing, Honor, Glory and Power unto 
Him that sitteth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever 
and ever.” 

The following rules were adopted for Church Government: 

“ 1. We recognize equal rights and equal privileges among all 
members. 

“ 2. We take the Scriptures as our guide in the discipline of 
members. 

“ 3. Any individual giving evidence of Christian character may 
be a member of this Church on receiving a two-thirds vote of the 
members present at any regular monthly meeting. 

“ 4. On application any member in good standing may receive 
a letter to unite with any evangelical body. 

“ 5. At the annual meeting, which shall be held on Wednesday 
evening previous to the first Sunday in May, the Church shall, 
by ballot, make choice of a Clerk, Treasurer, and three Deacons, 
to serve one year, or until others are elected to fill their places. 

“ 6. These rules may be amended at any annual regular meet¬ 
ing, a previous notice having been given to that effect.” 


CHAPTER XIX. 


. & 

When healed of all divisions, 

The Church shall gain her strength, 

And her prophetic visions 
Are realized at length: 

In sweet fraternal union 
The saints on earth shall live; 

And blessed the communion, 

When love shall take and give. 


(>o 


t T will have been seen in previous chapters how 
studiously the question of visible union had been 
kept in view by those taking part in these dis¬ 
cussions. They were men having discernment of the 
times, and felt that they were laying foundations for 
the future. In their view the work they were doing, 
and their example, were to have an influence upon the 
Christian sentiment of the age. They saw the Church 
just entering upou a new era of growth and conquest; 
an era in which the prayer of the suffering Savior 
should be answered: “That they all may be one, as 
thou Father art in me, and I in thee; that they also 
may be one in us; that the world may believe that 
thou hast sent me.” 

Considering the evil influence of divisions among 
Christians, giving birth to rivalries and denomina¬ 
tional jealousies, which so sadly interfere with Chris¬ 
tian charity; causing such waste of money and minis¬ 
terial time and talent, it seems strange that this 
subject of union has not received more attention in 


(293) 




294 ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

times past. It is, however, pleasant to know that the 
old barriers are being burned away. 

The prejudices and misunderstandings begotten of 
ignorance are vanishing. 

The more intelligent and spiritual minded of the 
several denominations are recognizing each other as 
brethren, and working together in various ways to 
promote the cause of the common Master. 

While these facts are full of moral significance, as 
affording hope for something better in the future, it 
is still true that the great body of professing Chris¬ 
tians are yet apparently asleep upon this subject. The 
sectarian spirit is still strong, each party wishing all 
others to come to them as a condition of union. 

The wrong of all this, lies in this fact, among others, 
that visible barriers are erected between those who are 
really one in Christ. 

Christians are thus placed in a false attitude before 
the world, and thus the working power of the Church 
is hindered. 

Whatever reasons may have existed in the past for 
the division of Christians into denominations, such is 
now the unanimity of opinion on all points vital to 
the Christian life, that excuses should be laid aside, 
and henceforth there should be a continuous effort to 
promote visible church unity among all Christ’s dis¬ 
ciples. 

While upon this topic, it may be well to notice 
some of the sophisms by which, in the present condi¬ 
tion of society, denominationalism is excused and 
justified. The first is this: “Men cannot see alike; 
what pleases one does not please another. Some are 

J./.- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 295 

so constituted that they cannot be anything hut 
Methodists; others are naturally Baptists; others 
Presbyterians, and yet others Episcopalians.” 

If this argument were of any value it would justify 
men in being Unitarians or Universalists, and even 
Deists and Atheists. 

A second sophism is this: “ Oneness of opinion in 
regard to theological speculations is essential to church 
unity.” 

This statement is false, for the reason that church 
unity is not based upon creeds, but upon fellowship in 
Christ. 

Fellowship in Christ is the outgrowth of belief that 
we are mutually regenerated and belong to Christ’s 
spiritual body, — the Church. To be thus united to* 
Christ is to bring forth the fruits of holy living. 

Christ is the Christian’s creed, — the alpha and 
omega of his highest aspirations and dearest hopes. 
The Church, therefore, needs no other creed than that 
which centers directly in him. The fellowship of the 
saints, then, is a “ fellowship in Christ,” and not in 
theological speculations. And so unity is simply a 
fellowship. 

The foolish boast of some ignorant persons that 
they were born Methodists, or Baptists, or Presby¬ 
terians, as the case may be, is not true. If they were 
born into Christ’s Kingdom at all, they were born 
Christians and not sectarians. People become thus, 
sectarian in consequence of association with sncli de¬ 
nominations before or after their conversion to Christ. 

Again: It is argued that denominational churches 
are needed to stir each other to Christian activity and 


!v.*n. 


296 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


to keep them mutually pure. The moral outcome of 
this argument is this: “The spiritual life of the 
Church is so low and selfish, that it can be kept pure 
only by appealing to sectarian interests.” 

If this argument were true, it would present a sad 
picture of the Pharisaism of the denominational 
churches. But I regard it as a mere excuse, and as 
false in itself. The purity and activity of the Church 
are never promoted by appeals to selfish and party 
interests, but to Christian love. 

That God is able to overrule this party spirit and 
make it subservient to the interests of his cause, is 
only an illustration of that infinite wisdom by which 
he “ makes the wrath of man to praise him.” But 
that fact is not for the glory, but the shame of Chris¬ 
tians. 

How blessed will be the day when love to Christ 
and perishing souls, shall alone give inspiration to 
Christian zeal and activity. Then the work of God 
will move on like the flow of a majestic river, and not 
like the fitful and turbid waters of the mountain 
torrent. 


CHAPTER XX. 


How precious is the bride of Christ, 

In her Redeemer’s eyes; 

Fair as the moon, clear as the Sun, 5 

Which evermore their courses run, 

And ornament the skies. 

Her beauty and her moral power, 

Are forces all divine; 

They strike a guilty world with awe, 

And with a sweet attraction draw 
Believers to her shrine. 

S T the time appointed, those interested in the 
organization of the church, convened at the 
school house, to hear and act upon the report 
of the Committee. 

After prayer by Rev. Mr. Coleman, the Constitu¬ 
tion and Confession of Faith were read, approved and 
adopted. 

A proposition was then made to proceed at once to 
the organization of the church. Pending action upon 
it, Mr. Lovell suggested the propriety of inviting a 
council of the different denominational churches, 
within a given distance, to advise with them and take 
part in organizing the church. This suggestion w r as 
heartily seconded by Mr. Ennis, who said: 

“ It is a good one, for it will prove that we extend 
the hand of fellowship to our brethren of the denomi¬ 
national churches.” 

This proposition was at once.adopted, and Brothers 
( 297 ) 


298 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


Lovell, Ennis, and Lyman, were appointed a committee 
to issue letters missive, inviting a council. The meet¬ 
ing then adjourned ten days, to give sufficient time for 
the calling and convening of said council. 

The churches invited to take part in this council 
were: The M. E. Church of Springdale, Eev. Mr. 
Bateman, pastor; the Baptist Church of Cherry Creek, 
Bev. Mr. Ford, pastor; the Presbyterian Church of 
Auburndale, Bev. Mr. Jones, pastor, and the Congre¬ 
gational Church of Wellsburg, Bev. Mr. Truman, 
pastor. Each was invited to send a delegate, in addi¬ 
tion to the pastor. 

These were the only churches within a reasonable 
distance from Unionville. With the letters missive 
were also sent statements of the undenominational 
character of the proposed church, with brief reasons 
for its organization. 

To the pastors of the Methodist and Presbyterian 
churches, this invitation had an unfamiliar look, but 
Mr. Ford and Mr. Truman were familiar with the 
work of councils. 

With the explanations sent, the churches invited 
deemed it their duty to attend, and were, therefore, 
represented by pastor and delegate. 

The Council met at the time appointed. Bev. Mr. 
Coleman had also been invited to sit as a member, and 
to open it with a sermon. In doing so he took for his 
text the laudatory language of Moses, as recorded in 
Deut. xxxiii: 29: 

“ Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, 
0 people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, 
and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


299 


enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt 
tread upon their high places.” 

In unfolding his theme he first referred to that char¬ 
acteristic of the Hebrew, by which names are expres¬ 
sive of the traits of character of the persons and 
and things bearing them. In illustration, he said, the 
name Jacob meant “ supplanter” and expressed that 
trait in that patriarch’s character, by which he sought 
to supplant his brother Esau. 

It also prophetically set forth the same trait in the 
character of his descendants, by which they supplanted 
the Caananite nations; and finally, it characterized the 
church in its work of conquering the world for Christ, 
and dispelling the darkness and ignorance of the 
nations begotten of sin. 

So, also, the name “ Israel ” was given to Jacob 
when he sought divine protection and deliverance from 
his revengeful brother. 

While penitentially confessing the sin suggested by 
his name, and which was the procuring cause of his 
present distress, he said: “ I will not let thee go, ex¬ 
cept thou bless me.” The answer to his persistent 
prayer came in these words: “Thy name shall no 
more be called Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast 
thou power with God and with men, and hast pre- 
, vailed.” 

The name also prophetically announced the triumph 
of his posterity in supplanting the Caananites. In a 
still higher sense it characterizes the church as princely 
prevailors in winning the world for Christ. 

From this point he discussed the element of success 
in the work of the church, pointing out the trials and 


300 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


dangers incidental in its work, on tlie one hand, and 
its glorious success on the other. 

He then dwelt upon the usefulness and happiness oi 
the Spiritual Israel, and the certainty of its final 
triumphs. 

At the close of the sermon, the Council was organ¬ 
ized by the election of a Moderator and a Scribe. A 
copy of the letters missive, inviting the council was 
then read. After prayer by the Moderator, Mr. John 
Lovell gave a brief statement of their circumstances, 
and the reasons which had guided them in the steps 
they had thus far taken. He also read the Constitu¬ 
tion and Articles of Faith, that had been agreed upon, 
with the proposed covenant. 

The reasons for their action were so reasonable and 
just, and the need of a church in that community was 
so urgent, that the Council came to the unanimous 
conclusion that the movement was wise and timely, 
and advised the organization. 

The Constitution, Articles of Faith and Covenant 
also met the approval of the Council. 

The names of those wishing to unite were read by 
Esquire Benson. They were then invited to arise; and 
Bev. Mr. Jones read the Covenant; to which each 
in turn assented. The Council then arose and entered 
into a covenant of fellowship and sympathy with these 
brethren. 

Bev. Mr. Bateman offered the constituting prayer, 
Bev. Mr. Truman gave the charge, and Bev. Mr. Ford 
the right hand of fellowship to each member, in behalf 
of the churches represented in the Council; thus wel- 


301 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

coming them to the fellowship of the entire Christian 
brotherhood. 

Before adjourning, the Council was requested to aid 
the church in the ordination of the two deacons, pre¬ 
viously chosen to that office, viz.: Messrs. Ennis and 
Benson. After the reading of Paul’s description of 
the qualifications of a deacon, by Bev. Mr. Truman, 
these brethern were set apart by the imposition of 
the hands of the ministry present, Eev. Mr. Jones offer¬ 
ing the prayer of consecration. After singing the 
hymn: “How sweet the tie that binds,” etc., the 
Council adjourned. 

Thus the Church of Christ in Unionville was 
launched into organic life. 

We shall now trace its progress, as it develops into 
strength, as a model for other churches. 


CHAPTER XXL 


We are witnesses for Jesus, who washed us in his blood, 
Proclaiming to the nations the wondrous love of God; 

To those who sit in darkness the light of life we bring, 

And those who mourn in sadness, with joy of heart shall sing. 

the Scriptures, the importance of the stated 
ministry of the word, and the proper observance 
of the ordinances of the gospel, are distinctly set 
forth. It is by the foolishness ot preaching that God 
saves those who believe. . Paul’s commission ran after 
this style: “ Delivering thee from the people and the 
Gentiles, to whom I now send thee, to turn them from 
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to 
God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and 
inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith 
that is in me.” So the same Apostle very pertinently 
inquires, “How shall they believe in Him of whom 
they have not heard? and how shall they hear without 
a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be 
sent?” Men divinely called of God, as was Aaron, 
and endued with power from on high, are the humble, 
but powerful instruments by which God works for the 
pulling down of the strongholds of sin. Men so sent 
have been the means of the mightiest moral results, 
in all ages. Witness Peter’s sermon on the day of 
Pentecost, when three thousand souls were converted 
to Christ. Follow Paul in his missionary tours 
through Asia Minor and Greece, as he went preaching 
( 302 ) 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


303 


the unsearchable riches of Christ; what multitudes 
were won to the standard of the cross! 

The religious wants of mankind are the same in 
every age. Man is, in the constitutional wants of his 
being, a religious creature. He was made to worship. 
He does and will worship. But it depends upon the 
character of the object worshiped, and the class of 
emotions and affections called into play, whether that 
worship shall be elevating or depressing, — whether it 
shall minister to righteousness or sin. The grand 
object of the gospel is to lead men into the new life 
of love, with its purity and nobility, by leading them 
into the most endearing fellowship and communion 
with the most noble and unselfish of all beings; — God 
manifest in the flesh. 

The members of the newly-organized church at 
[Jnionville felt the force of these truths. They knew 
that God or Satan would rule in their midst, — that 
Satan fills all that God does not fill. They saw that 
God w T as calling them to the battle for Christ. They 
must put on the gospel armor, and engage in the con¬ 
flict. They must have a leader, an under shepherd, — 
one that should go out and in before them, break the 
bread of life to. them, and organize and superintend 
their work. 

Mr. Coleman had now been with them some four 
weeks, selecting lands for his colonists, and preparing 
the way for their removal, by building a few cheap dwell¬ 
ings for their use when they should arrive. He was 
soon to return East for his family. To him, there¬ 
fore, the thoughts of the new church turned, as the 


304 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


man of tlieir first choice. If they could secure him as 
their pastor, they had a bright future before them. 

By previous appointment, lie was to preach for them 
the ensuing Sabbath. It was therefore arranged that 
at the close of the morning service, a special meeting 
should be called, to give formal expression to the 
wishes of the church. In anticipation of this, the two 
deacons, with the clerk, had an interview with him, to 
learn if his services could be secured, and if so, upon 
what terms? 

In answer to their inquiries, he replied: “ I wish to 
hold myself in readiness to follow the leading of 
divine Providence. If I am the unanimous choice of 
the church, and the other terms can be satisfactorily 
arranged, I would think it my duty to accept a call to 
the pastorate, and cast in my lot among you.” 

In regard to salary, he did not expect the same 
amount he had been receiving at the East. There, his 
salary had been one thousand dollars a year, and the 
use of a commodious parsonage. Here he would have 
to furnish his own house, as they were yet too weak to 
think of building either a meeting house or parsonage. 

In view of these facts, he thought the least he could 
live on, with any comfort, would be eight hundred 
dollars. If, however, in their feeble circumstances, 
they could raise three hundred of that sum, or more, 
he was of the opinion that the American Home Mis¬ 
sionary Society would make up the balance, when 
applied to in due form. 

The fact that they took no sect name would make 
no difference, so long as they were truly evangelical, and 
were self-governing under Christ. Were they to place 


Fig. 0. — Baptism of the Emperor Constantine. 



This is a representation of the baptism of Constantine the 
Great. The Emperor is mersed in the bath, metaphorically called 
the “ laver of regeneration,” and Eusebius adds the proper rite of 
baptism by 'pouring. This baptism of Constantine occurred 
between 324 and 337 A. D., and the engraving was designed to 
give a truthful represensation of his baptism as it actua'lty took 
place* (See Chapters IX and X.) 
























































. 

























/ 


. 


































' 

. 














* 























. 










* 












• 


H 9 *-.■ v * 




































































































ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


305 


themselves under the ecclesiastical control of some 
centralized denominational church polity, the case 
would be different. They would then say: “If you 
give your strength and influence to build up an 
ecclesiastical centralized polity, with the papistic 
element as its controlling genus, you must look to 
those with whom you thus affiliate to sustain you in 
your feebleness.” “ But,” said he, “ inasmuch as you 
have adopted the polity of the Apostolic churches, in 
its essential features,—that being also the characteristic 
feature of the associated congregational churches, — I 
know of no bar to your co-operating with them in 
fellowship and labor.” 

“ Receiving aid from them, you will of course co-op* 
erate with them in their various benevolent societies,, 
sending to their respective treasuries such contribu¬ 
tions as you shall be able to take up, from time to time. 
And after you have reached a condition of self sup¬ 
port,—as I hope you will in a few years, at most,—grati¬ 
tude, if no other motive, should lead you still to aid 
their treasuries by such contributions as you shall he 
able to make.” 

To these statements of Mr. Coleman, Esquire Ben¬ 
son replied that he saw nothing unreasonable in them. 
Messrs. Ennis and Lovell also expressed themselves 
satisfied with the terms. 

It, therefore, only remained for the church to take* 
the appropriate steps to give him a call in due faring 
and to pledge the needed salary. 

At the close of the morning service, the church was 
called together, when the facts just narrated were 
laid before them. While they were anxious to secure 
20 


306 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


the services of Mr. Coleman, Mr. Lee and Mr. Lyman 
felt doubtful about their being able to raise so large a 
sum as even $300. 

Mr. Lee said: “We are all so poor, and have to lay 
out so much in improvements and for needful buildings, 
and money is so hard to get in this new country, it 
don’t seem to me that we are able to do anything in 
that line.” 

Mr. Lyman said: “I think we can do something in 
our way. If the pastor will take his pay in such 
things as we raise on our farms; but, for one, I don’t 
want a man to pinch and starve. If we engage a 
pastor, it should be understood that we will do the 
best we can for him, and if that is not enough to make 
him comfortable, and free from mental worry, we had 
better not engage one.” 

Esquire Benson then arose and spoke as follows: 

“Brethren: We cannot afford to do without the 
preaching of the gospel. I, for one, would rather 
place myself on short allowance in regard to worldly 
comforts, and practice a most rigid economy. I would 
lay out less for improvements and buildings. Ho, 
brethren, it won’t do to go without the ministrations 
of the gospel, any more than to go without food. Our 
souls must be feed, as well as our bodies. I propose 
the appointment of^a committee to make an assessment 
of the amount necessary to secure the services of a 
pastor, according to the respective ability of each, all 
the facts in each one’s case being duly considered.” 

Mr. Lyman replied that he did not like the idea of 
an assessment. It looks too much like dictation and 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


307 


coercion. What he gave, he preferred to give freely, 
without any constraint. 

Esquire Benson explained that he, too, was opposed 
to any dictation or constraint in the matter. “ But,” 
said he, u if we are all willing to give according to 
each one’s real ability, such an assessment would only 
show what each one’s share of the amount would be. 
Then it would only remain for each to subscribe, or 
pledge that amount.” 

Mr. Lovell then arose and said he wished to make a 
suggestion, but he would preface it by stating what he 
thought was the Bible rule for raising supplies for 
religious purposes. “ I find that rule,” said he, “ first, 
among the patriarchs, expressing their views of the 
ratio of their income due to God, for religious pur¬ 
poses. Thus, when Abraham met Melchesidek on his 
return from the slaughter of the kings, as the priest 
of the high God, he gave a tenth of all to him. This 
was a religious act. 

“The same rule of giving is mentioned by Jacob. 
When at Bethel he had visions of God, he exclaimed: 
‘ How dreadful is this place! it is none other than the 
house of God! it is the gate of heaven.’ He then 
makes this vow: 4 Of all thou shalt give me, I will 
surely give a tenth to thee.’ 

“When, afterwards, the descendants of Abraham 
and Jacob were incorporated as a nation, with laws for 
their religious and civil duties, we find the same 
measure of religious giving laid down as a duty. Not 
as a matter of simple benevolence, but as a solemn 
obligation to God; as the recognition, on the part of 


308 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


man, of the claims God has upon us of love, worship 
and obedience. 

“ Thus, in Leviticus, xxvii: 30: ‘And all the tithe 
of the land , whether of the seed of the land, or of 
the fruit of the tree, it is the Lord's; it is holy unto 
the Lord. 5 So, in the 32d verse: ‘And concerning 
the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even whatsoever 
passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holv unto the 
Lord.’ 

“The question I wish now to raise is this: Is not 
this measure of giving for the maintenance of religion 
as morally binding on us as it was upon Abraham and 
Jacob, and as it was afterwards on their descendants? 

“ Let us judge of this question in the light of Paul’s 
own words, in the 3d chapter of Galatians: ‘ If ye be 
Christ’s, then ye are Abraham’s seed, and heirs accord¬ 
ing to promise.’ Does not God speak as directly to 
us as to Israel of old, by the prophet Malachi: 
‘Bring ye all the tithes unto the storehouse, and prove 
me now, herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will 
not open the windows of heaven, and pour you out a 
blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive 
it.’” 

“Well,” said Mr. Lee, “I always supposed that 
passage to refer to spiritual rather than to temporal 
blessings.” 

“ I am aware,” said Mr. Lovell, “ that the passage 
is often quoted in illustration of spiritual tithing; but 
if we investigate its real teaching, it evidently refers 
to the tithing of our substance for the purpose of 
sustaining the institutions of religion. What an ex¬ 
egesis of the passage that would be which required a 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


309 


tentli of our love and worship. In spiritual offerings 
God requires the whole heart, with its best affections. 
There is no tithing of worship and thanksgiving. The 
most acceptable offering we can bring is a broken 
heart and contrite spirit.’’ 

Mr. Lee responded: “ I have always supposed pay¬ 
ing tithes to be a part of the Levitical law that was 
done away when Christ came, to whom all its types 
and sacrificial offerings pointed.” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “We should discriminate be¬ 
tween that which was really typical in the Mosaic 
institutes and that arrangement for providing the 
needful sacrifices required to be offered in the observ¬ 
ance of the Levitical law. The tithing system, though 
made binding by the Mosaic institutes, did not form 
any part of its types and shadows. Like the law of 
the Sabbath, it existed prior to the giving of the law, 
and outlived it, and enters into the Gospel dispensa¬ 
tion for the same reason that it did into the old dis¬ 
pensation.” 

Mr. Lyman replied: “However correct Brother 
Lovell’s position may be, it seems to me quite beyond 
our power to give a tenth of our income for the sup¬ 
port of the Gospel. Hot one of this church could 
live under it. It would soon bring us all to the poor- 
house.” 

“ I think I heard you say,” Mr. Lovell replied, “ that 
in Ohio you worked another man’s farm on shares, 
giving him one-third for the use of the land.” 

“Yes, I did.” 

“How many year3 did you work it on those 
terms ? ” 


310 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SIIEPHERD. 


“ Five.” 

“ Did you succeed in laying up any thing? ” 

“Yes; I laid up one thousand dollars in that time, 
and it formed the capital I had to get a home of my 
own in Kansas.” 

“Well, Brother Lyman, if you could give one-third 
of your annual income for the use of that farm, and 
yet lay up two hundred dollars a year, can you tell me 
why you could not give one-third of the income of 
your own farm to the cause of God, if that amount 
was actually needed; much less, only one-tenth?” 

This was an argument that Mr. Lyman and all pres¬ 
ent could appreciate. It was absolutely convincing. 
But Mr. Lovell nailed it with another, by saying: 

“It is an undisputed historic fact that when the 
Jews were faithful to the demands of the Mosaic 
ritual, they annually gave in tithes and offerings, with 
gifts to the poor, not less than one-third of their 
annual income; and they were never more prosperous 
than when they lived up to the demands of that 
ritual.” 

Esquire Benson said: “ I have never thought of the 
subject in the light Brother Lovell has stated it. I 
have always thought Christians should give all they 
could afford to the cause of Christ, be it more or less. 
The practical difficulty has always been for each one 
to determine what they could afford to do. I have 
noticed that my brethren thought that I could do 
more than I thought my share; while in turn it seemed 
to me they were able to do more than they did. The 
truth is, we have had no recognized standard by which 
to judge of our duty. We need just such a standard. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


311 


If now we adopt as our standard one-tenth of our 
annual income, the rule will be simple and definite. 
It will be for each to set apart one-tenth of our grain 
and fruit crops as they come in; a tenth of the annual 
increase of our flocks and herds; a tenth of our wool, 
butter, cheese and other products, and hold and regard 
them as strictly belonging to God. If the Lord blesses 
our labors and multiplies our seed sown, we can give 
more, and if our crops are cut off by drought or insects, 
we shall give less.” 

“ But how will this rule work,” said Mr. Lyman, 
“ where a man don’t raise enough to meet his own real 
wants? Must he give a tenth of the little he does 
raise, and let his family suffer with cold and hunger?” 

To this difficulty Mr. Lovell replied as follows: 

“This rule of giving a tenth is only general. There 
are exceptional cases. In all our churches there is a 
wide difference in the financial ability of their mem¬ 
bers. If some are unable to give a tenth, others could 
give one-third, or even one-half, of their income, and 
not feel it in the least. The rich can make up the lack 
of the poor. It was so in ancient Israel, and yet the 
tenth was demanded.” 

Mr. Lee again replied: “If every member of this 
church should give a tenth of their income, it is quite 
uncertain whether it would amount to three hundred 
dollars. Our crops may be injured by insects or short¬ 
ened by drought.” 

“What does the word of promise say?” inquired 
Mr. Lovell. 

Mr. Lee thought a moment and replied: 

“ I can’t call the word to mind.” 


312 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


“ Shall I repeat it for you? 55 

“ Yes,” said Mr. Lee. 

“ f Honor the Lord with thy substance and the first 
fruits of thine increase; so shall thy barns be filled 
■with plenty , and thy presses shall burst out with new 
■wine? ‘Prove me now herewith , saith the Lord of 
Hosts , if 1 will not open you the windows of heaven, 
^and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be 
enough to receive it. 5 55 

As no further objection was offered to the plan of 
:giving the tenth, Mr. Lovell proceeded to make the 
proposal which he had in his mind when he first arose. 
It is this: 

“ I propose that we mutually pledge to each other, 
that, in humble reliance on the blessing of God upon 
our labors, we will each give a tenth of our crops, as 
they come in and are ready for market, or home use; 
also a tenth of the butter and cheese we make, as well 
:as a tenth of the increase of our flocks and herds. 
And that we individually take them to the pastor of 
tfcbe church; and that he receive them as our portion 
of his salary, be they more or less; assuming that they 
will this year amount to three hundred dollars. 

“ These various articles, thus given, to be taken at 
their market value. Should they overrun the sum 
named, this year, or fall short, it will guide us in the 
-sum we may need to ask hereafter. 55 

Mr. Coleman having given his assent to this propo¬ 
sition, every member voted to adopt the plan for one 
year at least, and to follow it till some better or more 
Scriptural plan should be proposed. 

With these preliminaries arranged, it was moved 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


313 


and adopted by a unanimous vote, that Bev. Mr. Cole¬ 
man be invited to become our pastor. 

This call of the Church was duly accepted. The 
time for his pastorate to begin from the time of his 
return with his family. 

In accepting the call, Mr. Coleman said: “I wish 
to append a few words, as supplemental, to the very 
judicious remarks of Brother Lovell in regard to the 
measure of giving for the cause of Christ. I most 
heartily approve of the plan of giving a tenth of our 
income to the cause of God. But I believe that it 
should be the minimum and not the maximum. We 
should do no less. In given circumstances it may be 
duty to give much more; even to one-third or one- 
half. Is Christian love less constraining than law? 
Under its inspirations shall we do less than Moses 
commanded? It is true that Christ has not bound 
us to the circumstantial exactitude of law, as a rule 
of duty. He seeks to fulfill in us the claims of law 
under the sweet inspiration of love. 

“Under this law of love, we are to measure our 
duty of giving by the urgency of the needs of his 
cause. Thus, while it is our duty, as a general rule, 
to give a tenth, at least, we should hold ourselves, 
and our possessions, as belonging wholly to Christ; 
and regard ourselves simply as stewards, using all 
we have so as to promote his glory and advance 
his cause in the world. 

“In the exercise of this stewardship, he requires 
us to supply our own personal wants and those more 
immediately dependent on us, to reserve enough of 
our income to be used as capital to make our future 


314 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


labor, more successful; in this arrangement, reserving, 
in all cases, the Lord’s share, of a tenth; but beyond 
the necessities of business, to give all, in various 
charities, to aid the cause of God and humanity. 

“ In coming to reside among you, and to cast in my 
lot with you, allow me, dear brethren, to express the 
deep desire I feel to have you a model Church , in all 
that constitutes the best type of elevated Christian 
character, and earnest self-denying labor for Christ; 
for your progress in holiness will be in the ratio of 
your spirituality and Christian activity. I wish, 
therefore, to see you take a step forward, or, it you 
prefer it, backward, to the practice of the Apostolic 
Churches, in the manner , as well as the measure , of 
Christian giving. It is that of weekly offerings as a 
part of religious worship. In the Apostolic Churches, 
giving was considered an act of worship. This was 
in accordance with the Apostle’s injunction, 1 Cor. 
xvi: 2: ‘ Upon the first day of the week let every one 
of you lay by him (set apart) in store as God has 
prospered him.’ The consecration of treasure, like 
the consecration of time, was thus held as an indis¬ 
pensable duty. I would, therefore, recommend you 
to go back to the Apostolic practice of weekly offer¬ 
ings, as a part of your worship. I would urge it 
as a means of grace. Of all the Christian virtues, 
there is none fairer, or sweeter, than beneficence; nor 
any that needs more careful cultivation. It is not 
indigenous to the soil of the unrenewed heart; it 
springs not of earthly, but of heavenly seed. Like 
all the other graces, as faith, hope, and patience, it 
needs constant activity. Paul, in writing to the 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


315 


Church in Corinth, reminds them of the benevolence 
of the Churches of Macedonia: 2 Cor. viii: 2, 3, 4, 6: 
‘ How that in a great trial of affliction, the abundance 
of their joy, and of their deep poverty, abounded 
unto the riches of their liberality. For to their power, 
I bear record, and beyond their power, they were 
willing of themselves; praying us with much en¬ 
treaty, that we would receive the gift, and take upon 
us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. 
We desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would 
finish in you the same grace also.’ So Paul would 
have men abound, not only in ‘ faith, and utterance, 
and knowledge, and in all diligence; but in this grace 
also? 

“It was as much for the sake of the Corinthian 
givers, as for the poor saints at Jerusalem, that he 
made the request. God could preach the gospel by 
other agencies than men, if he chose. He could carry 
on all his benevolent operations in the world, without 
our aid, if it were best; but in doing so he would not 
develop in us this essential grace of benevolence. It 
is by thus giving, that he would have us cultivate in 
ourselves that which brings us into active sympathy 
with himself. Giving has thus been made a duty 
for the sake of the giver, as well as the receiver. 

u It is only by exercise that either grace or muscle 
is developed. The arm never used, has no strength. 
Is it strange how painfully some hearts open, or how 
slowly some hands let go? How strong the grasp of 
covetousness. This grace of giving is a counter-irri¬ 
tant to that insidious vice, and its action should be as 
constant as the temptations to that sin. It is to meet 


316 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


and check this perversity, that the Apostle enjoins the 
duty of these weekly offerings. 

“ The wdsdom of this rule can be seen in the fact 
that it meets the circumstances of both rich and poor. 
A person could easily manage to give twenty-five or 
fifty cents a week, and lay by that amount in store, 
when it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossi¬ 
ble, to pay $8 or $10 at one time. A brother, who 
had tried both ways, said to'me: ‘Last year I sub¬ 
scribed and paid $20, in quarterly installments, on my 
pastor’s salary, and I never paid one of them without 
feeling it deeply. This year I have paid, in weekly 
offerings, over $30, and have not felt it in the least.’ 

“The savings banks are an illustration of this 
weekly laying by. They have made many a poor man 
rich, whose earnings would have otherwise been 
wasted in some form of hurtful indulgence. Chryso¬ 
stom, in referring to this rule, says: ‘Paul, by not 
enjoining them to deposit all at once, made his coun¬ 
sel easy, since the gathering by little and little hinders 
all perception of the burden and cost.’ Men that hear 
and heed the claims of Mammon all the week, surely 
need to hear, in the Lord’s house on the Lord’s day, the 
demand for the proper share of the week’s earnings 
that belong to him. If it be the hundred measure 
of oil, let no one sit down and write fifty. That is an 
easy devotion which costs us nothing but the service 
of the lips, and that but a sentimental hearing that 
does not bring forth fruit in the life, and which does 
not destroy close fistedness. 

“Again: the duty of giving should spring from prin¬ 
ciple, and not from mere feeling or emotion. It is easy 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


3 IT 


for an advocate of some benevolent cause so to portray 
its needs as to awaken the most generous emotions in 
the most penurious and niggardly; and for the moment 
to draw from them large offerings, without in the least 
bettering their moral natures. Covetousness would still 
be the ruling power in their lives. But this system¬ 
atic weekly giving must spring from principle, and 
form itself into a habit of true practical benevolence. 

“And now, should this systematic weekly giving 
become the rule of evangelical Christendom, each one 
giving as the Lord has prospered him, the financial 
distress of the churches would be at an end. Our 
great benevolent societies, whose efforts are constantly 
crippled for want of funds, and whose work would be 
almost indefinitely enlarged, if the means were put 
into their hands, would thenceforth find their treas¬ 
uries always full. 

“ The Christian churches of the world have money 
enough to carry forward every Christian enterprise. 
Money for show and parade, for costly garments and 
expensive carriages, costly living, and even for tobacco 
and other evil and hurtful indulgences, is not wanting. 

“ Finally, my brethren, let me say that if we adopt 
the rule of the sainted Baxter, we shall find no trouble 
in carrying on any enterprise that our religious needs, 
may demand. He says: ‘ My rule has been to study 
to need as little as possible myself; to lay out nothing 
on need-nots; to live frugally on little; to serve God 
on what he allowed me, so that what I took for self 
might be as much for the common good as that which 
I gave to others, and then do all the good I could with 


318 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEED. 


the rest.’ Brethren, let us hold the fort in this place, 
for Christ and humanity.” 

Mr. Wyman then arose and said: “ I approve ol 
Brother Coleman’s suggestion, but I don’t exactly see 
how we are to reconcile it with the plan we have 
adopted. We are largely an agricultural people; our 
crops come in mostly in lumps, and in the Autumn of 
the year. Situated as we are, I don’t see how we 
could adopt the plan of weekly offerings. If we had 
a steady weekly income in money, as mechanics and 
merchants have, it would be easy. With the weekly pay 
in hand, it would not be difficult to lay by one-tenth 
as the Lord’s share. The plan of weekly offerings 
will do for the cities and larger villages, but not for the 
country.” 

Mr. Coleman remarked, in answer to Mr. Wyman’s 
difficulty, that he thought it more apparant than real. 
“ I think,” he said, “ a plan can be devised by which 
the two can be harmonized, so as to work together, 
especially after our first year.” 

“ What plan would you suggest, to adapt the weekly 
offering system to the circumstances of the farming 
community? ” 

“ While keeping the minimum rule of a tenth in 
view, I would estimate, as near as possible, the proba¬ 
ble amount of the different products of the farm or 
dairy. This would enable me to form a judgment of 
the cash value of the Lord’s tenth. Holding this 
tenth as belonging exclusively to his cause, I would 
divide it by fifty-two, the number of weeks in the 
year. This pro rata I would pledge to pay in weekly 
installments, with the understanding that on any Sab- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


319 


bath that I had not the money I would pass my pledge 
for the amount, on a slip of paper, into the box, in 
the place of the money, to be taken up when I had 
the money to redeem it. These pledges would be 
held by the treasurer till redeemed. In most cases 
the pastor will need such things as you have to sell, 
and in case of a private arrangement with him you 
should pay in advance of your pledges; his receipt can 
go into the plate, and will apply to your credit, till it 
reaches the Sabbath for which it pays. 

“ This is only a brief outline of the general plan, 
which can be modified to meet special cases.” 

Mter these suggestions by Mr. Coleman, the meet¬ 
ing adjourned. 


CHAPTER XXII. 


jgf E. COLEMAN having completed his arrange- 
ments for the removal of his colony, was 
ready to return east on the following Monday. 
It was therefore needful, that before his departure, an 
application for aid in his support should be made out, 
that the facts in the case might be therein properly 
stated. Not only the ministers name,* hut his eccle¬ 
siastical standing must be given, as a guarantee to the 
A. H. M. Soc. that the funds granted would he used 
wisely and well; for that Society could not afford to 
waste its money on doubtful enterprizes, or without 
the reasonable expectation of corresponding spiritual 
returns. 

Mr. Lovell was requested to draft the application. 
Mr. Coleman therefore gave him the needful items to 
put into it. The following is a copy of the instru¬ 
ment thus drawn and signed by the officers of the 
Church, and duly endorsed by the Missionary Com¬ 
mittee of the District Association within whose bounds 
the Church is located. It may serve as a guide, in its 
leading features, to other TJnion Churches that may 
hereafter be organized on this unsectarian basis. 

TJnionville, Kansas, April 20,1873. 
To the Secretaries and Executive Committee of the 

A. H. M. Soc., Bible House , Astor Place , N. 7.: 

Dear Brethren: We, the undersigned, at the request and in 

behalf of the Church of Christ at Unionville,-County, 

Kansas, would respectfully set forth the following facts: 

(320) 



ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


321 


This Church is but recently organized. The membership is 
from six different denominations. The Church assumes no de¬ 
nominational name, but extends the hand of fellowship to all 
who love our Lord Jesus Christ in the various evangelical 
Churches. 

Its Articles of Faith embrace only the great fundamental truths 
upon which all evangelical Christians agree, leaving all doubtful 
and disputed questions in the realm of private opinion; demand¬ 
ing only evidence that applicants for membership are regenerated 
and accepted of Christ. 

The Church was organized by the advice and with the assist¬ 
ance of a council composed of pastors and delegates from four 
different denominational Churches. We have not had the oppor¬ 
tunity to enter into formal relations of fellowship for counsel and 
co-operation in Christian work with other Churches standing 
on the same platform of self-government. But we will do so at 
the earliest practicable time. 

We have engaged Rev. J. Coleman, of the General Association of 
Mass., as our pastor for one year. We have pledged him the sum 
of eight hundred dollars, which we think the least that will sup¬ 
port himself and family with any comfort. But of this sum we 
are able to raise only three hundred dollars on this field. We 
therefore respectfully ask the Society to make up the balance of 
five hundred dollars. We regret to be obliged to ask so large a 
sum; but as there is a prospect of an addition to our numbers, 
and to our financial strength, we hope to do more another year, 
and to lessen the amount each succeeding year, till we reach self 
support; after which we hope to return annually increasing sums 
to aid your treasury. Our present membership is twenty-five. 
This is the only Church in the township. There are other 
Churches eight, ten, thirteen and fifteen miles distant, Baptist, 
Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational, whose pastors com¬ 
posed the council advising the organizing of the Church. 

With the assurance of our hearty sympathy with you in your 
noble unsectarian work, and with earnest prayer for your success 
we are, dear brethren, yours, in the bonds of Christian love, 

Edwin Benson, I Deacons. 

Wm. Ennis, ) 

John Lovell, Clerk. 


21 


322 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


In due time the aid asked was granted, demonstra¬ 
ting the truly Catholic and unsectarian character of 
the A. EL. M. Soc. Mr. Coleman also returned, after 
an absence of four weeks, and entered with zeal upon 
the duties of his ministry. His family, accompanied 
by a number of his old parishioners, also returned with 
him. These formed the colony spoken of in a former 
chapter. They were greatly pleased with the general 
aspect of the country, and especially with the location 
to which Mr. Coleman had led them. Their coming 
was also a source of encouragement to the old settlers, 
particularly to the members of Unionville Church, for 
they came with letters of commendation to this Church. 
They would not only help develop the country by their 
industry and enterprise, but would also aid the relig¬ 
ious interests of the place, and strengthen the young 
Church in its work. 

The summer passed pleasantly. The services ot the 
Church were largely attended. Mr. Coleman’s minis¬ 
trations w r ere profitable, and generally very acceptable, 
He was liberal in his views, though strictly orthodox, 
and Catholic in his feelings. Possessed of a large 
sha e of good common sense, a keen observer of hu¬ 
man nature, he felt that his commission was to preach 
the Gospel, and not to stir up strife about doubtful 
and disputed questions whose bearing, at best, was 
remote from the vital and practical in the Christian 
life. 

The Sabbath School also grew in numbers and in 
interest. Old and young, parents and children, became 
members of the school. It was pleasant to witness 
with what interest the child of six and the man of 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


323 


seventy studied tlie lessons of the national series. 
The school house, though large for so new a commu¬ 
nity, was usually crowded to its utmost capacity. It 
became apparent to the leading minds of the Church 
that it would soon be needful to take steps for building 
a meeting house large enough for the present and pro¬ 
spective wants of the community. 

Meanwhile the time drew near for holding the 
meeting of the Association, within whose bounds the 
Church was located. Apprised of this fact, the ques¬ 
tion arose as to the propriety of seeking a recognized 
and formal fellowship with the churches composing it. 
Would such a step make the Church sectarian, or give 
it a denominational character? Some feared it would; 
others argued that, inasmuch as the Church was un¬ 
sectarian, both in name and in spirit, and entirely 
self-governing in its polity, association with other 
Churches of like spirit and polity, for mutual counsel 
and co-operation in Christian work, would not make 
the Church any more denominational than it was 
already; for the Churches with whom we propose to 
associate are not sectarian, and only denominational in 
name. Should they lay that name aside, they would 
still be in their polity just what that name describes. 
It was also urged that many of the Churches thus 
associated had no denominational name, but were 
known as the Pilgrim, or Plymouth, Church of the 
village or city where they are located. It was also 
argued that as the fraternal relations existing between 
the Apostolic Churches did not make them a sect or 
denomination in any true sense, so to enter into similar 
fraternal relations with other self-governing Churches 


324 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


would not make us any more of a denomination than 
we are already. Mr. Lovell remarked that he. for one, 
would gladly enter into the same relation with any 
and all the other denominational Churches, if they 
would do so on the same terms. But the difficulty 
with the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches lies in 
this, that they would demand as a condition of union 
with them that we assume their name, and put our¬ 
selves under their ecclesiastical control, or, in other 
words, they would assume a mastership .over us. With 
such conditions, “ I, for one, am not willing to com¬ 
ply. In a union with the Associated Congregational 
Churches we would still be independent and self-gov¬ 
erning under Christ.” 

In view of all the facts brought out in the discus¬ 
sion, it was moved and carried that the Church send 
two delegates and its pastor to attend the meeting of 
the Association, and seek to be received into fellow¬ 
ship with the Churches composing it.” 

Upon motion of Mr. Ennis, seconded by Mr. Lyman, 
Esquire Benson and John Lovell were elected as dele¬ 
gates to said meeting. 

At the time appointed for the meeting they all went, 
and met with a most cordial greeting. Mr. Coleman 
presented a certificate of membership and commenda¬ 
tion from the Association with which he had stood 
connected at the East, and was received as a brother 
beloved to the fellowship of the Association. 

The Church at Unionville was also received into the 
fellowship of the Churches, and its delegates were 
enrolled as its representatives. 

It was the first meeting of the kind that Esquire 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


325 


Benson had ever attended. It, however, reminded him 
of meetings of Presbytery he had attended in Ohio. 
There are three particulars in which this meeting dif¬ 
fered from those: 

First. It had less of the air of authority and more 
of a feeling of brotherhood. Ho complaints or appeals 
came before it, as in the case of Presbytery, for it had 
no appellate jurisdiction over the Churches represented 
in it. 

Second. There was also more freedom in debate, 
and with it more courtesy and brotherly consideration. 

Third. It also took more time for devotional exer¬ 
cises, and was marked with a deeper and more earnest 
tone of religious feeling. 

These differences grow out of the genus and aims 
of the two bodies. The one is a Church court and 
the other a fellowship meeting, for the purpose of 
mutual counsel and concerted action in Christian 
rather than Church work. The governing spirit of 
one is authority and control; the controlling thought 
of the other is fraternity, counsel and advice. 

Hence the papistic element that springs up sponta¬ 
neously in our fallen human nature was held in check 
by the very genus of the meeting itself. It was a 
meeting in which the common rights and responsibili¬ 
ties of each were to be respected; and where brotherly 
love and charity were to be the ever watchful guardians 
of its peace and harmony. Like the two cherubims 
that, with outspread wings, hovered over and shad- 
.dowed the ark and the mercy seat in the Holy ot 
Holies, their presence holds in check the spirit of con- 


326 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


ceit and selfishness, and the disposition to be lords 
and masters in the Church of God. 

The meeting passed off very pleasantly. 

Questions of common interest to the Churches were 
brought forward and discussed. Reports of the state 
of religion, including revivals, Sabbath school work, 
temperance, and church building, were given by the 
delegates of the Churches. 

Esquire Benson was greatly delighted with the spirit 
of the meeting. The hearty good-will and Christian 
courtesy manifested by the members toward each other, 
and the broad unsectarian feeling that ruled in their 
speeches and debates, struck him as peculiar and re¬ 
freshing. The absence of any feeling of dictation was 
also a noticeable feature of the meeting. 

Years before he had been disturbed by the action 
of Presbytery in overriding the wishes of the Church 
to which he belonged, in Ohio, in removing from them 
their pastor against their remonstrance. This fact came 
up to his mind as in contrast with the genus ot this 
meeting of Association. 

While he and Mr. Lovell were driving over the 
prairie, on their return home, they fell into conversa¬ 
tion about the difference between the spirit and action 
of presbyteries and associations. Mr. Benson admitted 
the difference to be in favor of the latter. 

“ Why,” said Mr. Lovell, “is it so? Human nature 
is the same everywhere. Men love power? It is con¬ 
genial to the human heart to exercise authority. In¬ 
corporate the element of power and authority into an 
ecclesiastical polity, and all who accept of the polity 
will justify themselves in the exercise of authority, to 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


327 


carry out and compel any measure that may strike 
them as desirable. Why, therefore, is it so, except 
that the polity under which you were trained gives 
play to this element so congenial to our fallen nature? ” 

“There is force in what you say,” Mr. Benson 
replied. 

“ It is no impeachment of the piety and zeal of a 
Christian, or a Christian minister, that he should seek 
to exercise power and authority in religions matters. 
It arises out of the very weakness and imperfection ot 
human nature itself, for it is characteristic of that 
imperfection, that it does not see or know its weak¬ 
ness ; and, therefore, the greater the zeal for the promo¬ 
tion of the cause for which we think it our duty to 
labor, the greater will be our desire for any power or 
authority by which we can the more effectually accom¬ 
plish the objects we seek to promote. 

“We have an illustration of this tendency in the 
case of Bishop Asbury, to which I referred in our 
discussions preparatory to the organization of our 
church. You recollect what I then said of the good 
and earnest bishop. It was at the first General Con¬ 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1792. 
At that conference, when they were laying the founda¬ 
tion principles which were to characterize and, in 
their view, give greater efficiency to their work, Eev. 
James O’Kelley, with quite a number of other minis¬ 
ters, who were of democratic tendency, sought to place 
the appointing power in the conference itself. Bishop 
Asbury, who had, in imitation of Mr. Wesley, exer¬ 
cised that power in the appointment of the preachers 
to their several charges, was bitterly opposed to this 


328 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


movement. It seemed to him that the efficiency, the 
harmony and success of their work, depended upon his 
holding the entire control of that matter in his hands. 
It was a matter of heated debate for a day or two, and 
when the zealous bishop thought the power was likely 
to he taken out of his hands, and made subject to the 
decision of the conferences, he was in great distress 
and despondency. So keenly did he feel, and so ready 
was he to construe this measure into personal opposi¬ 
tion to himself, that the conference yielded to. his 
wishes, and placed the appointing power directly in the 
hands of the bishops, where it has remained to this day, 
the presiding elders only forming an advisory board. 
This desire of the good bishop for power did not 
spring from any wish for self aggrandizement, for he 
he was a most laborious and self denying man, but 
purely from a mistaken zeal for the success of his 
work. 

“ The bishop, though a good man, was but a man, 
finite and limited in the range of his knowledge. He 
could see this subject only in one aspect of it, and 
that view controlled him. No one who does not 
occupy the standpoint of God himself, can be safely 
entrusted with ecclesiastical power. If Christ were 
not possessed of the attributes of divinity, possessing 
an all-comprehending knowledge, an infinite grasp of 
mind, constituting a wisdom perfect and unerring, he 
could not sit in the seat of universal dominion. He 
could not be the one Master , the King of Saints, the 
only author and executor of law. 

“ This concentration of power in the hands of one 
man drove Eev. James O’Kelley, and a number of 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


329 


preachers, out of that church, and led to the organiza¬ 
tion of the 4 Christian Churches of Virginia and North 
Carolina,’ and the same one man power is the cause 
of the several schisms that have taken place in that 
church since that day.” 

They rode in silence for some time, each occupied 
with his own thoughts. At length Mr. Lovell said: 

“ Has there not been quite too much power put into 
the hands of church officers, and so exercised by them, 
for the peace and harmony of the churches; all under 
pretence of zeal for the truth, and for the purity and 
efficiency of our common Zion?” 

44 1 hardly know what to say to that inquiry,” said 
Mr. Benson; I have never thought much about it.” 
Then, after a moment, he added: 44 Come to think, I 
presume it is so, some of the most hurtful dissensions 
I have ever known have grown out of such efforts to 
govern others.” 

44 If you will carefully study the entire history of the 
church, from the days of the Apostles down to this 
time, you will find that all the divisions which have 
arisen, giving birth to sects, have been produced by 
this disposition to govern others. It is the 4 Diotre- 
phes ’ who love to have the pre-eminence. 

44 Their actions, if not their words, have been: 

“ ‘ If you think not as we, it is proof you are wrong, 

For we are the people, for the truth we contend; 

Your methods are impotent, ours are strong, 

And we mean to conquor, and rule in the end.’ ” 

44 This question of polity,” Mr. Lovell continued, 
“ has really more to do in producing the visible unity 


330 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


among Christians, now seen to be so necessary to the 
final triumph of the Gospel, than we have been aware 
of in the past. 

“ You may think me wildly enthusiastic on this 
subject, but I want to tell you just how the matter 
shapes in my mind. These centralized forms of 
church government stand squarely in the way of that 
general visible unity, which must take place as a con¬ 
dition of the final conquest of the world for Christ. 

“ Such organizations are strong to promote the work 
and interests of the sects. They may produce appar¬ 
ent unity in the sect, but just in proportion as they 
are strong in these respects they are strong, also, to 
hinder that real visible unity, in which sect and party 
are to be done away. 

“Just so long as the sect spirit continues, the rival- 
ship of sects will be a stumbling block to the outside 
world, making men skeptical and indifferent to the 
claims of Christianity. In fact, the only way out oi 
the trammels of sect into the visible unity of all 
believers, is to come back to the simple democratic 
polity of the Apostolic churches.” 

“ That idea involves the breaking up of all those 
hierarchic and consolidated forms of church govern¬ 
ment that now pass under the names of Catholic, 
Episcopal and Presbyterian,” said Mr. Benson. 

“ Yes, it will come to that in the end, but very 
great changes in the general thought of the Christian 
world must precede that event.” 

“That will be a long time in the future, I think,” 
responded Mr. Benson. 

“And yet, it may come sooner than we anticipate. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


331 


The moral influences of the times are rapidly shaping 
events in that direction. The Papacy is to be ‘de¬ 
stroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming.’ ‘ The 
brightness of His coming ’ is to be characterized by 
two facts, which are to go hand in hand: A general 
diffusion of light on all questions connected with the 
cause of vital religion, and this among the rest, and 
a larger infusion of spiritual life, which implies a 
higher personal consecration and a warmer love to 
Christ, carrying with it the love of the brethren; and, 
a broader and truer fellowship, which leaps over party 
enclosures, and extends to all disciples of Christ. 

“ This work of unifying Christians will not be done 
all at once. It will take place, here and there, in iso¬ 
lated places, by the union of all the Christians in the 
place, as the church of that place, just as we have done 
at Unionville. 

Esquire Benson had listened to this talk of Mr. 
Lovell with deep attention, and finally remarked: 

“ I think, if visible unity ever does take place, it 
will be in the way you suggest.” 


i 

k 

i 

> 


CHAPTER XXIII 


S S they liad several miles yet to ride to reach 
home, Mr. Lovell took the opportunity to still 
further ventilate his thoughts upon the root 
idea or fundamental principle of the Church. So he 
began by saying: 

“ The true idea of the Church, as set forth in the 
Hew Testament, is that of u fellowship of equals in 
Christ. The bond of this fellowship is love; nothing 
more, nothing less. It is a union which springs up, 
as by intuition, between souls united to Christ. It is 
therefore a union in Christ. Its entire strength and 
force is love to Him as the one Master and Lord. De¬ 
stroy this love, and you destroy the fellowship, and 
the consequent union that flows from it. This love 
will show itself in visible acts of brotherly kindness, 
and a sweet delight in the society of those of kindred 
mind. Here is the fellowship. All bonds of union 
beyond this are essentially papistic; of the earth 
earthy. 

“ The Church, then, is the fellowship of all believ¬ 
ers, wherever they may be. The local Church is the 
general Church localized, and the general Church is 
merely the local Church generalized. 

“ How, if these propositions are true, then, to make 
the Church, local or general, a fellowship or union in 
Christ, it sternly rules out all beyond this. It is not, 
therefore, a legislature. It cannot assume to enact 
(332) 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 333 

laws for its own regulation in any proper sense. It 
finds all needed law in the Word of God. Its only 
business, as an organized fellowship, is to obey the one 
Master, and do the work laid upon it by Him. Those 
subordinate rules adopted by the voice of the brother¬ 
hood for the more successful carrying out of the spe¬ 
cific commands of the Master are not properly called 
laws. 

“ This principle of fellowship forbids the lifting up 
of one class of men to make laws over others. It 
confers no law-making powers. He, who is the only 
lawgiver in Zion, remands the entire company of be¬ 
lievers out of the hall of legislation into the household 
of brethren. 

“Again: if the Church is a fellowship in Christ, it 
is not a court of justice. It refuses to assume the 
functions of a magistracy when it hears the command 
of the Master l Be not ye called masters.’ ‘Who 
art thou, that judgest another man’s servant? ’ 1 Judge 
nothing before the time, till the Lord come.’ 

“All the authority the Church can assume is that 
specifically laid upon it in the words ‘ Brethren, if any 
man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual 
restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, consider¬ 
ing thyself, lest thou also be tempted.’ ‘ If thou hast 
aught against thy brother, go to him and tell him his- 
fault between thee and him, alone,’ etc. Here we have 
all the needful legislation to guide us in the duty of 
admonition, discipline and reproof. All this is set 
forth, not in law, but in grace, that the offender’s soul 
may be saved. And even when admonitions and en¬ 
treaties are unavailing, and the Master says ‘ Let him 


334 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


be unto the as a publican and sinner/ it involves no 
judicial sentence, but a simple withdrawal of fellow¬ 
ship from him, as an unconverted man, for whose sal¬ 
vation we are still bound to pray and labor. 

“ Again: if the Church is a fellowship in Christ, it 
cannot be under the control of an heirarchy , ‘ for one is 
your Master, even Christ/ contains a principle which 
excludes the heirarchal element, and throws us back 
upon the simple principle of fellowship. 

“ Neither is the Church invested with any magical 
powers. It is not a name to conjure with. It is no 
peddler of pardons, no remitter of sins, no vehicle 
bearing souls to Paradise. It is no traditional or sacra¬ 
mental link between man and God. It is not per¬ 
mitted to set itself up as a rival Savior or mediator 
over against the Lord Jesus. 

“ The Church, indeed, has spiritual gifts, and glo¬ 
rious powers, and divine force; but these are wholly 
from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the hearts 
and lives of its members.” 

To these statements Esquire Benson replied: “ How 
can a mere fellowship carry force enough to unite and 
keep its members in order? It seems to me that it 
would lack the needful governmental energies.” 

‘ k I freely admit,” said Mr. Lovell, in answer, “ that 
unless a Church uses force, such as that of the civil 
government, to give effect to its mandates, it can con¬ 
fer on them no more authority than our personal con¬ 
victions of the reasonableness of the command; the 
mandate itself being measured, not by the dictation 
of the Church, but by the command of Christ. The 
only force in the Church is moral force, which applies 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


335 


itself through an appeal to men’s convictions of right 
and propriety, and their wish to live in the fellowship 
of the Church. This is the only force that can work 
unity and harmony in any Church organization; from 
simple Congregationalism, up through Presbyterian¬ 
ism and Methodism, to Prelacy and the Church of 
Pome. 

“ Men of the world, and even good Christian men, 
have looked at this question in the same light that 
you suggest. They have supposed it too weak to main¬ 
tain order and discipline; but wdiat are the facts where 
this principle of fellowship has been tested? It was 
never known to fail, where Christian love and fellow¬ 
ship were warm and active. 

“ Your own confession, an hour ago, fully confirms 
the uselessness of mere authority and Church power 
to coerce its measures. Such authority exercised only 
creates dissension and division. 

“ The conclusion, then, that I have reached, is this: 
Fellowship is the fundamental law of the Church; it 
draws its strength directly from Christ, through the 
Holy Spirit, and not through adherence to any creed 
or volity, ritual or party, but through him who is 
‘ the life, the truth, and the way.’ ” 

“Well, if the polity of the Apostolic Churches is 
the only one upon which all Christians can unite (for 
no one will assume to be wiser than the Apostles,) and 
if perfect visible unity is to characterize the Church 
in the millenium, then I think we of IJnionville have 
reached that happy state, as we have adopted the pol¬ 
ity of those early Churches,” said Mr. Benson. 

“ So far as polity is concerned, I think we are on a 


336 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


platform that will enable us, without any change, to 
drop into visible unity with the entire household ot 
faith. But we need more than polity; for this, though 
favorable to it, is not the bond of union. Ah! Brother 
Benson, I fear we have not reached the millenium 
state in the depth and Christianlikeness of our piety. 
Not that I think we are behind other Churches in this 
respect. I think there is a higher consecration, a 
stronger faith, a warmer love, and a greater deadness 
to the world yet to be attained, Take the Church as 
a whole, I think its Christian life is yet in its infancy. 
In many things we yet think as children. Our vision 
of the higher life to which the Church will yet come 
is as though we saw through a glass darkly. The 
whole Church, as I think, will yet come into this 
clearer light, and that richer experience which here 
and there have been obtained by the Elijahs and Isaiahs 
of the Church. 

“The Apostolic idea of the consecration of our 
wealth, as well as our persons, will be one important 
step toward the attainment of this richer experience. 
At present too large a number professedly consecrate 
their souls to the service of Christ, who yet hold on 
to their wealth as if it were their own, and to be used 
according to their fancy and for selfish purposes. 
They do not properly realize the nature of their 
stewardship. 

“ It is true yet, as a general rule, that the pennies 
are for Christ, while the dollars are reserved for self, 
and too often used to foster pride and worldly show. 
I am glad to know that there are noble exceptions to 
this charge (and their number is increasing), who hold 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


337 


their wealth as a charge committed to them, to he 
used to promote the Kingdom of Christ. They regard 
themselves as stewards put in trust with what they 
have, and for which they must give account to God.” 

“ Beally,” said Mr. Benson, when Mr. Lovell had 
finished the last sentence, “ your ideas are of an ad¬ 
vanced type, and if the world could be brought to 
your standard of intelligence and Christly character, 
it would be a heavenly millenium indeed; but, ah! 
Brother Lovell, a great work will have to be done 
before that happy era dawns. Have you any idea 
that your beautiful vision is anything more than a 
beautiful dream, which will have its fulfillment only 
in the other world, and after the weakness and imper¬ 
fection of our material bodies are laid in the grave?” 

“ I have no expectation of the immediate fulfill¬ 
ment of ‘ the beautiful vision,’ as you are pleased to 
call it; but I do see, as I think, the working together 
of those influences that, in the fullness of time, will 
usher in that glorious day — for which the Savior 
prayed — ‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father, 
art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one 
in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent 
me.’ The day of which Paul speaks, (Eph. i: 10,) 
‘That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he 
might gather together in one, all things in Christ.’ 
So in Chapter iv: 13, ‘Till we all come into the unity 
of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God; 
unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature 
of the fullness of Christ.’ 

“ Will not that be the era of perfected humanity, 
when the life of Christ will have wrought out in the 
22 


338 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


Church the entire unity of faith and knowledge? 
"What about sects and divisions, then? Is the expecta¬ 
tion of the fulfillment of these prophetic declarations 
never to be fulfilled? Are we to suppose the present 
divided state of the Church is always to continue; and 
that all efforts for the enlightenment and unity of the 
body of Christ are to fail? Do not the signs of the 
times indicate the gradual approach of that blessed 
era? Mark the disappearance of the old theological 
strifes, and the gradual unification of opinion among 
the several denominations upon the great vital doc¬ 
trines of the Bible. Mark, also, the growing spirit of 
union among the different evangelical Churches. See 
this tendency to union in Young Men’s Christian 
Associations; as also the cheerful co-operation of the 
different Churches in revival work, so common now, 
and growing more so every year. Notice also the 
awakened sense of the evils of division, and the awful 
waste of the Lord’s money to maintain sect divisions 
in sparsely settled communities. These things are 
being seen and deplored, while leading minds in all 
the different denominations are pondering the ques¬ 
tion how visible unity can be effected. 

“ Now, taking all these facts into consideration, do 
we not see the beginning of the end of divisions, and 
a glorious augury of the final visible unity of the 
Church on earth?” 

“ Really,” said Mr. Benson, “ I begin to feel some 
of your hope and enthusiasm. It does seem possible 
that your ‘ beautiful vision ’ may yet be realized.” 

Mr. Lovell smiled, and then, with a thoughtful 
expression of countenance, replied: “This glorious 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


339 


hope can be realized only by calm, Christian discus¬ 
sion of the manifold evils of division on the one hand, 
and of the blessedness of true Christian unity on the 
other; and hence I regard it the duty of all who have 
been led to see and deplore these evils, to labor in love 
for their removal.” 

“But, after all,” Mr. Benton remarked, “if sect 
divisions are wrong, as you think them to be, why 
does God bless the labors of sect Churches, as we 
know he does?” 

“Because the ministers and members of those 
churches are honestly laboring to serve the Master 
and save souls, according to the best light they respec¬ 
tively enjoy. Two facts bear upon this question: 
First, the best of Christians are finite and limited in 
the range of their knowledge, and so imperfect; it 
follows, therefore, that they are often living under 
false impressions of truth and duty, and so may be 
unconsciously unduly warped by prepossessions on 
the one hand, and prejudices on the other. Second, 
the other fact is, that Christianity is progressive. 
More light is breaking out of God’s word from age 
to age, in which the errors and mistakes of the past 
are seen and corrected. 

“ It should also be borne in mind that God uses the 
best agencies at command to accomplish his work. 
If nothing were to be done toward saving men, till 
the agencies themselves were perfect, then nothing 
could be done. 

“ But Paul tells us that 4 God uses the weak things 
of this world to confound the mighty, and I ase things 
of the world, and things that are despised, hath God 


340 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


chosen; that no flesh should glory in his presence/ 
Suppose men were strong and perfect; and as such, 
were to labor for the salvation of their fellow men ;, 
being successful, their strength and perfection would 
be their snare. They would be led to glory in them¬ 
selves, and to think too highly of their own wisdom 
and strength. 

“Paul also tells us (Phil, i: 15, 16): ‘Some preach 
Christ even of envy and strife, and some also of good 
will. What then ? Notwithstanding every way, whether 
in pretense, or truth, Christ is preached; and I therein 
do rejoice; yea, and I will rejoice/ ” 

Mr. Lovell continued: “Now, we can see why God 
blesses the preaching of the Gospel, even when the 
instrument is actuated by a selfish or sectarian motive. 
How much more when those who preach it really love 
him and aim to be true to him, even though they are 
under bondage to sect. Of that bondage they are not 
really conscious. If they were, they would break away 
from it, as hundreds are doing in these days/’ 

“ Very true; I see it now,” he replied. 

Mr. Lovell continued: “ I believe the desire for visi¬ 
ble unity is far more general than appearances indicate. 
Thousands in all the denominational churches who 
sigh for this visible unity, are quiet because they see 
no way to reach it under present circumstances; and 
hence they wait and labor as best they can, till Divine 
Providence opens the way for something better. The 
present train of events is rapidly rolling on that better 
day. In the newer sections of our country, where 
society is yet in its formative stage, movements like 
our own will frequently take place, all the Christians 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


341 


of the vicinity uniting to form the Church of that local¬ 
ity, on the simple basis of the Apostolic Churches. 

“ Now, however we may lament the division of the 
Church into denominations, we should consider the 
train of events that in each case gave rise to those 
divisions. It may be safely affirmed that in most 
oases there were causes which, at the time, seemed to 
necessitate the breaking away from the old, and the 
formation of the new. 

“ The wrong of the divisions lay in the papacy and 
corruption of the old, in doctrine and practice. 

“The reformers, Luther, Calvin, and John Knox, 
broke away from the Church of Home on account of 
her enormous idolatries and vices. It was their duty 
to do so. They could not reform that Church while 
remaining in it. They could not protest against its 
■errors while yielding to its authority. It had become 
a spiritual Babylon, a ‘ mother of harlots,’ and the 
voice of God said, 4 Come out of her, my people, lest 
ye be partakers of her sins and plagues.’ 

44 Such was the case with the Puritans and Pilgrims 
of England. The papistic element in the polity of 
the English Church, under the control of the blind 
papistic spirit that animated its leaders, together with 
the act of conformity that shut out all chance for a 
return to the purity and simplicity of the Apostolic 
Churches, drove them into a separation from it. 

44 Such also was the case with George Fox, and those 
under his leadership. They were driven from it on 
account of its worldly spirit and blind reliance on 
forms, and especially of baptismal regeneration. 

44 If we now come to the Protestant denominations 


342 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


of our own country, we shall find that some have 
originated from mistaken views of truth and duty; 
others have been caused by the practical working of 
the papistic element, unconsciously wrought into their 
polities. 

“ As an illustration of the first, take the case of our 
Baptist brethren. Their views of baptism and its cor¬ 
relatives have led them to incorporate immersion as a 
condition of membership and restricted communion 
into the polity of their churches. In this they have 
been sincere and conscientious, as I think no candid 
person will doubt. And so long as their peculiar views 
remain, I see no hope of union with them on any 
large scale.” 

“But,” interposed Esquire Benson, “don’t you 
think a change is going on among our Baptist 
brethren, by which they are coming to more liberal 
views upon the questions that divide them from the 
other Evangelical Churches?” 

“Yes, I think I see a growing tendency in that 
direction. I feel confident that, as their distinctive 
organization has grown out of mistaken views of water 
baptism, with its correlatives, so with further light 
upon those questions they will discontinue the prac¬ 
tice of restricted communion, and accord to each 
applicant for baptism the free choice of the mode in 
which it is to be performed.” 

“In that case, what will there be to separate 
them from other congregational and self-governing 
churches?” 

“Nothing, except the vote of the two bodies to 
unite, which I think would soon take place.” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


343 


After a few moments of silence, Esquire Benson 
said: “Brother Lovell, yon spoke of the papistic ele¬ 
ment in some of the denominational churches, and its 
practical tendency to work division. Can you give 
some additional illustrations of that fact?” 

Mr. Lovell replied: “ I think I have already venti¬ 
lated that subject quite freely in the debates at the 
time of the organization of our Church, and even on 
onr way toward home, an hour or so since. 

“ In what I have said, or in that which I may say 
in further illustration, I must disclaim any wish to 
find fault with those who conscientiously adhere to 
those forms of Church polity which I regard as essen¬ 
tially papistic. They are as loyal in their feelings to 
the Master as I trust I am, and for that loyalty are 
worthy of praise. They do not look at that subject 
from the same standpoint that I do, and, perhaps, 
have never had their attention called to it; and even 
where they have been led to examine it, it has been 
under circumstances in which they have viewed it 
from standpoints in which the subject could not be 
seen in all its bearings. 

“With this disclaimer, I will proceed. Take for 
illustration the Presbyterian polity. Its distinguish¬ 
ing feature is the consolidation of all its churches 
under the supervision and control of three distinct 
ecclesiastical bodies, each rising one above the other 
and having appellate jurisdiction over all below it, in 
the order of their relations — the Presbytery, the 
Synod and the General Assembly. The lower is thus 
brought under the jurisdiction of the higher from the 
local church up to the General Assembly. Each of 


344 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


these bodies exercises authority over all below it, and 
hence becomes a court of appeal. Here, then, is a sort 
of mastership, exercised in contravention to the ex¬ 
plicit command of Christ, who proclaims himself the 
only Master. The local church cannot settle a pastor 
over it without the consent and with the assistance of 
the Presbytery. This centralization and power of con¬ 
trol is what I call the papistic element. It is the 
distinguishing trait in the Catholic Church, and has 
made it the overweening despotism it is. 

“ It is to this papistic element I trace the several 
divisions which have marked the history of Presbyteri¬ 
anism. I do not say that other influences have not 
operated conjointly with this in causing these divisions. 
But those influences alone would not have made them. 
Thus the division into old and new school was caused 
by doctrinal differences upon speculative theology, the 
majority exciding the minority, simply because the 
polity of the Church gave them the power to do so. 
That it w r as this element in that Church that caused 
the division is obvious, from the fact that the same doc¬ 
trinal differences agitated the Congregational Churches 
of Hew England, but did not work division, because 
their polity threw the decision of such questions upon 
the local Churches themselves, where the majority of 
the brotherhood rule. Thus, in these Churches these 
questions adjusted themselves in an orderly way, 
without schism. 

“ The same is true in relation to the other divisions 
of Presbyterianism in this country and Europe^ 

“This same centralized form of polity was incor¬ 
porated into Episcopal Methodism in this country, and 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SIIEPII ED. 


345 


the result has been that division after division has 
taken place, till some four or five distinct bodies or 
sects have arisen, each hostile to the other. The Gen¬ 
eral conference occupies the highest seat of power, and 
holds all the bodies below it in its control. The same 
principle of appealate jurisdiction from the decision 
of the class to the Quarterly Conference, up to the An¬ 
nual Conference, while the members of each body can 
appeal to the body above it. 

“The wrong of all this is twofold: By permitting 
one man or a body of men to exercise authority over 
another, it silently hinders the development of some 
important traits of character. On the other hand it 
gives play to subtle forms of self-seeking and im¬ 
proper ambition. The domineering spirit to which 
this papistic element gives play is essentially antag¬ 
onistic to the highest development of a Christly 
character. 

“As I said, the world has had but one man who 
could safely exercise authority in religious matters, 
and that was the 4 man Christ Jesus,’ and he could use 
power, only as he was more than man. It was because 
4 in him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ 

“The plea that this element in Church polity is 
essential to the purity and efficiency of the Church is 
disproved by two facts. The Congregational and Bap¬ 
tist Churches of the land have maintained purity of 
doctrine and purity of life in all respects, equally well, 
if not better than Churches under the papistic form 
of government. 

44 We can also see what this papistic element is ca- 


346 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


pable of doing, by marking what it has done in the 
past. 

“First. For the Church of Rome, in making it the 
most greedy, grasping and tyrannical power on earth, 
as well as the most corrupt. And there is not one of 
her corruptions which was not forced upon her local 
Churches by the power of the Papacy, to which they 
are slaves. 

“ Second . In the Protestant Churches, which have 
incorporated it into their polities, in the strifes and 
divisions it has already wrought. 

“ The conclusion I reach is this: If it were possible 
to unite all Christians and all Christian Churches on 
any plan of centralized Church power, placing all their 
interests under the control of a general assembly or 
conference, it would not be a score of years before the 
exercise of that control would produce divisions. If, 
therefore unity could be obtained, it could not be main¬ 
tained on that basis. As a consequence, it can be ob¬ 
tained and maintained only on the basis of the absolute 
independence of each local Church of all authority 
above it, except Christ, with no papistic elements in 
the Church itself, thus remanding the organization of 
the Church back to the simple fact of fellowship, the 
fellowship of believers, for worship, counsel, and co¬ 
operation in Christian work. 

“ Another item in the conclusion I have reached is 
this: Assent to any statements of dogmatic theology 
in creed form should never be demanded of any per¬ 
son wishing to unite with the Church, as a condition 
of such union. The only condition of admission to 
the fellowship of the saints should be satisfactory evi- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


34T 


dence that Christ has accepted the applicant, par¬ 
doned his sins, and blest him with a measure of the 
new life of love. Such persons’should be accepted to- 
the fellowship of believers; that as babes they may bo 
taught and trained in the duties of the Christian life. 
The danger of a Church creed lies in this: That we 
are liable to make it the bond of union, instead of love 
to God in Christ. There can be no true union without 
fellowship, and no fellowship without love. Works on 
theology, setting forth the great truths of Revelation 
in their philosophical order, are all right. And before 
we set any man apart to the work of the Gospel min¬ 
istry, we should know that he has the literary and 
theological training which shall enable him to bring 
out of the storehouse of God’s word things new and 
old, for the instruction and edification of the Church. 
Make the pulpit sound in doctrine and faith, and with¬ 
out any formal creeds the Church will be sound also. 
Aside from the papistic element, creeds have been the 
only things that have wrought division in the house¬ 
hold of faith. 

“ There, Brother Benson, you have my idea on this 
question of the visible unity of the Church, the things 
which hinder and the things that help it.” 


CHAPTER XXIV. 


>c ^00N after the close of the conversations narrated 
V«S) in the preceding Chapter, Messrs. Benson and 
Lovell arrived at Unionville. Mr. Coleman, 
who went to the meeting of the Association with 
them, rode back w T ith Rev. Mr. Truman, whose return 
led him through Union ville. They enjoyed a very 

pleasant ride over the prairie in an interchange of 
thoughts upon topics connected with the work, of the 
Churches. 

In these conversations Mr. Coleman gave an account 
of the debates which had taken place in preparing the 
way for the organization of the Church at Unionville, 
and of the unifying effect they had had upon the minds 
of the brethren. Mr. Truman was much pleased with 
this narrative. Their minds were thus drawn to the 
subject of the weakness of the Churches in conse¬ 
quence of sect divisions, and the great waste of money 
in efforts to support two or more Churches in the 
same place, where there is room for only one; and 
where, if all the Christians should unite in one Church, 
they would still be so weak as to need financial aid. 

“It seems to me,” said Mr. Truman, “that could 
this question of union be properly brought before the 
Christian public generally, with a statement of the 
many advantages which would flow from it, the result 
would be good.” 


( 348 ) 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


349 


“ If it could be discussed in the same fraternal spirit 
in which it was at Unionville, it would, I think, in 
many cases, result in the same way — thus uniting all 
the professed disciples of Christ in the place upon the 
same unsectarian platform,” was Mr. Coleman’s reply. 

“But if it should even awaken hostility in some 
cases,” said Mr. Truman, “ I think the discussion, if 
conducted in a kind, Christian spirit, would result in 
good in the end. For, should it awaken opposition in 
those who are deeply imbued with the sectarian spirit, 
it would arouse the more considerate to the evils of 
division, and thus hasten the needed reform.” 

Mr. Coleman replied, “ The great mass of the Chris¬ 
tian world have never had their attention drawn to this 
subject; nor have they ever considered, in its true 
light, the one underlying principle upon which visible 
Church unity is possible — a simple 4 fellowship in 
Christ .’ ” 

Mr. Truman replied, “ All the different denomina¬ 
tions profess to build on that basis.” 

“That is true,” rejoined Mr. Coleman, “but the 
point is just this, that while the Apostolic Churches 
were based on 1 fellowship’ alone, our modern churches 
have not trusted to that only, but have overlapped it 
with other conditions, which have hindered the free 
expression of fellowship in Christ, and broken up the 
unity that naturally flows from it.” 

“ Pray explain that statement,” said Mr. Truman. 

Mr. Coleman replied: “The different denomina¬ 
tions have incorporated certain tenets into their basis 
of union, to which they demand assent as a condition 
of Church fellowship, and to the defense of which they 


350 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


rally. These tenets are only the coloring they give to 
acknowledged truths. As an illustration: The duty 
of baptism, in some form, is admitted by all the evan¬ 
gelical denominations; but our Baptist brethren have 
overlapped simple fellowship with the tenet of immer¬ 
sion and close communion, as a condition of organized 
fellowship, and thus practically treat as aliens those 
whom in words they admit to be true Christians. In 
so doing they demand compliance with a condition no 
where enjoined by the Master. In this case they have 
exalted a tenet out of its place, and made it an element 
of discord and disunion. 

“ In like manner the doctrines of the Divine Sover¬ 
eignty, election and perseverance, as explained by high 
Oalvinistic theologians, have been incorporated into 
Church creeds, and assent to them demanded of those 
wishing to unite with the Church, as a joint condition 
with the evidence of repentance and faith. 

“By thus lifting up these truths of the gospel, 
dressed in the garb of speculative theology, they 
have shut their doors against all those who could 
not accept of those speculations. They have thus 
placed a bar to visible unity, and have driven such 
persons into the opposite extreme. All this has been 
done under the plea of guarding the Church against 
false doctrine. 

“This attempt to steady the ark is practically an 
assertion that Christ is not able to preserve his Church, 
and that human wisdom must come to his aid. 

“ The result has been division in the body of Christ 
and a strife of words over matters half understood; 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


351 


and these have sadly interfered with Christian charity 
and fostered the sectarian spirit. 

“ While thus pointing out the causes of division, it 
is proper that we should recognize the fact that the 
different denominations are earnest and true in their 
efforts to promote the cause of Christ as they under¬ 
stand it. They are -working with the Lord’s tools but 
fail to use them as he directs. 

“ It would, therefore, be wrong to deny that each is 
the conservator of precious truths of the Bible, and 
that each has a noble heritage of one kind qjf- another. 
Each of the sect Churches has much of spiritual life, 
and each a noble catalogue of saintly names. If I 
speak distrustingly of them, it is not of the precious 
truths they enshrine, nor of the saintly men they 
enfold. But I speak of their organizations as inca¬ 
pable of manifesting the oneness for which the Savior 
prayed. And all this because Christians have not 
dared to trust the government of the Church wholly 
to Christ. 

“While the sects do not reject fellowship in Christ 
as a basis of visible unity, they practically deal with 
it, just as the Church of Borne, that most eminent of 
all sects, deals with salvation by Christ. Borne holds 
fully to Christ as a Savior, and then adds assistant 
Saviors, as the saints, the Virgin Mary, and the like; 
all with the view of making salvation surer. In like 
manner the different denominations administer the 
fellowship of the Lord Jesus, but add to it other fel¬ 
lowships as forms and creeds. 

“Eor does it help the difficulty, that the least of 
the denominations are venerable and strong, and that 


352 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


each has wrought mightily for the world’s advance¬ 
ment. But venerable and grand as any of them may 
be, there is one organization more powerful to accom¬ 
plish the world’s salvation, and that is the Church of 
Christ. This is exclusively under the leadership and 
control of the One Master , and is permeated with a 
divine life through the Holy Spirit. 

“ The sect Churches have for laws the enactments 
of wise and good men, who, under a mistaken view 
of aiding to order Christ’s household, have sadly inter¬ 
fered with his authority. They have acted upon some 
supposed precedent hoary with age, or some doctrine 
or ritual in antagonism with that of some other sect. 

“ While the Church of Christ has for its only law 
the Bible, the sects appeal to other authorities as well. 
They are of Paul, Apollos, of Cephas, of Augustine, 
of Luther, of Calvin, of Armenius. They come down 
from the Popes, or spring up from the Reformers. 
The Church is only of Christ , and is undivided. It 
follows Peter and Paul only in this, that it will call 
itself by no other name, nor obey any other authority 
than Christ. 

“ While the sects assume to be legislatures, courts 
of judicature, and hierarchs, the Church knows itself 
only as a fellowship and a household, of which Christ 
is head.” 

Mr. Truman listened to these explanations of Mr. 
Coleman with great interest, and then replied: 

“ You have opened a new train of thought to me. 
I have long felt that sect divisions were wrong; but I 
have never seen the distinction between them and the 
true Church of Christ so truly drawn before. If these 


Fig. 7. 


Jesus Baptized in Jordan by John. 



This picture is in the small Chapel of the Catacomb of Potia- 
nius, called the Chapel of the Baptistry. Beneath the portrait is 
painted one of those crosses, ornamented with precious stones, 
called Qemmatae , to the arms of which are hung the symbolical 
characters of Christ A and £2 — Alpha and Omega. The lamb is 
introduced in allusion to “ the Lamb of God,” and the single 
angel in this representation proves that it is a work of the most 
remote antiquity. (See Chapters IX and X.) 














































































































































































































































































































ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


353 


facts could be fully brought to the attention of the 
Christian world, I think it would result in leading the 
Churches out of sectarianism into the simple fellow¬ 
ship of Christ.” 

Mr. Coleman resumed: “ I wish to call your atten¬ 
tion to a mistake that many good men have fallen into. 
It is in confounding uniformity with unity. The aim 
of the sects has been to produce uniformity, and then 
call it unity. Uniformity in some ritual observance, 
or in some doctrinal statement, or in some polity; 
whereas Christ has nowhere commanded uniformity; 
nor have any of the inspired Apostles, in any case, 
made it a requisite. So thoroughly has the spirit of 
sect become incorporated into the thinking of most 
professing Christians, that it is difficult for them to 
conceive of an organic unity that does not mean 
uniformity. 

“So true is this, that on all sides to-day men are 
speaking with a kindly ridicule of any endeavor toward 
the visible unity of the Church. Such persons are 
really ignorant that what they oppose is the idea of 
uniting all the sects in one sect, with a stereotyped 
uniformity as the basis of union. Such an endeavor 
would, no doubt, be as absurd as it would be futile. 

“ There can be no union without the liberty of indi¬ 
vidual thought and action. 

“ Is ow, since the New Testament nowhere commands 
uniformity, for any man or body of men, to demand 
it, is to be guilty of producing schism in the Church 
of Christ. All the uniformity really needed will come 
spontaneously, where souls are truly united to Christ; 

23 


354 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


and without it, all unity and uniformity are but as 
ropes of sand. 

“ It is a pleasing thought to me, that Christians are 
better than the organizations in which they live, and 
I cannot repress the conviction that Churches based 
on the platform of a simple fellowship in Christ, like 
the Apostolic Churches, would develop a higher and 
nobler type of Christian character, because freed from 
sect influence and narrowness.” 

“ Yery true,” rejoined Mr. Truman. “ But after all, 
spiritual unity, upon which visible union is based, is 
not destroyed, but only repressed, and kept from its 
proper expression; but it is gratifying to know that 
sectarian bonds are loosening.” 

“Yes,” said Mr. Coleman, “let them loosen and 
fall to pieces, till all the Disciples of Christ in any and 
every place on earth shall run together as one people, 
in the sweet bonds of brotherly love and be united in 
worship , in counsel , and in Christian work.” 

Soon after this they arrived at Unionville, from 
whence, after dinner, Mr. Truman drove home. 




i* 


CHAPTEK XXY. 


The prayer of the Savior will surely prevail, 

For crowned with his favor, our work cannot fail; 

’ Twas sung by the Prophets who plainly foretold, 

That Jesus would gather the world in one fold. 

The mighty may fight with Jehovah’s decree, 

And the skeptic may write that it never shall be • 

But the finger of time on its dial shall stop, 

E’er one promise shall fail, or one prophecy drop. 

Go stop it, proud scorner, alas it is vain! 

Ye may as well tie up the winds with a chain, 

Or the stars, or the tides of the ocean control, 

Or fuse the vast ices that circle the pole. 
o-> 

t F the reader has followed with any interest the 
facts and incidents connected with the organ¬ 
ization of the Church of Christ at Unionville, 
he will desire to know how this experiment has worked. 
The query has arisen, Will this union be permanent? 
It is only where men try to exalt themselves above 
their fellows, and exercise authority over them, that 
dissensions arise. That such men do sometimes get 
into the Church, and attempt to play the part of a 
Diotrephas , is sadly true. Such persons crept into 
the Apostolic Churches. Paul said to the Elders of 
the Church at Ephesus, “After my departing shall 
grievous wolves enter among you, not sparing the 
flock. Also of your ownselves men shall arise speak¬ 
ing perverse things to draw away disciples after them.” 
If such things took place in those early Churches, it 
( 355 ) 


356 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


should not be urged as an objection to a Church based 
upon the same polity, should they take place now. I 
am happy, however, to say that no single instance of 
the kind has arisen in the Church at Unionville; and 
from our knowledge of its leading men, none, in our 
opinion, will soon arise. 

In a previous Chapter we referred to the necessity, 
long foreseen, of building a meeting house for the 
accommodation of the people of Unionville. That 
necessity pressed upon them at an earlier date than 
they had anticipated. A number of circumstances 
contributed to that result: 

First. The village of Unionville, being situated in 
the center of a rich farming and grazing country, 
which soon filled up with a forehanded, industrious 
and moral population, became the center of business 
for many miles around. It therefore grew in popula¬ 
tion as the demands of business increased. 

Second. This was the only Church in the region, 
and being evangelical and unsectarian, it offered a 
congenial home to all who love our common Savior. 
Thus the entire strength of the Christian community 
centered there. 

Third. Mr. Coleman’s labors extended to the adja¬ 
cent neighborhoods. This made the people acquainted 
with him, and so to appreciate his efforts for their 
spiritual welfare, they were therefore drawn to the 
Sabbath service at the village; and thus the audience 
became large. 

Fourth. Mr. Coleman’s labors were greatly blessed, 
so much so, that in the autumn of his first year, the 
entire community enjoyed a precious season of refresh- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 357 

ing from tlie presence of the Lord. At the end of his 
first year the Church had received an accession of fifty 
members — thirty on profession of faith and twenty 
by letters — thus bringing up its membership from 
twenty-five to seventy-five. The school house would, 
therefore, no longer hold the audience, and it became 
necessary to build a house large enough to meet the 
present and prospective wants of the community. 

Fortunately the year had been an exceedingly fruit¬ 
ful one. Everybody’s crops were larger than usual. 
It thus happened that the one tenth pledged by the 
members of the Church at the beginning of the year 
overran the estimate one hundred dollars. Mr. Cole¬ 
man’s suggestion of weekly offerings had been adopted, 
and had been proved, and found to work well — even 
better than was anticipated — and was adopted as a 
permanent rule by the Church. 

At the beginning of Mr. Coleman’s second year, the 
brethren had no difficulty in pledging six hundred 
dollars toward his salary. During the same year they 
raised on subscription, in the community at large, 
fifteen hundred dollars, for the purpose of building a 
meeting house. With this sum, and five hundred 
dollars sent them from friends in Massachusetts, 
through Mr. Coleman’s influence, they erected a 
plain, substantial building, thirty-six by fifty, with 
a modest tower for the reception of a bell. The 
space on the inside was so arranged as to accommo¬ 
date an audience of three hundred. 

It is an observable fact, that when religious pros¬ 
perity attends a Church, it inspires enthusiasm among 
the people in temporal matters connected with the 


358 ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 

interests of the Church. Such was the case at Union- 
ville. While the house was in process of erection, 
the ladies of the village and vicinity organized a dime 
social, in order to raise funds with which to furnish 
it. A benevolent friend in Massachusetts presented 
the Church with an elegant pulpit Bible; and a Ladies’ 
Home Missionary Society in Connecticut sent them a 
neat silver plated communion set. Stimulated by 
these presents, Deacon Benson purchased a commun¬ 
ion table to correspond, and on the day of dedication 
presented it to the Church. 

Stimulated by the example of the older members 
of the Church, the young people organized a Musical 
Association, and by concerts raised the funds for the 
purchase of an organ for the use of the choir. It was 
arranged to have all these things in their place on the 
day of dedication. 

The reader may well imagine that it was a joyful 
day to this young Church, when this Church home 
was solemnly consecrated to the service of Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost. 

Rev. Mr. Truman, of Wellsburg, had been invited 
to preach the sermon, and Rev. Mr. Ford to offer the 
prayer of dedication. 

Mr. Truman took as a text suitable for the occasion, 
the 13th to 16th verses of cxxxii. Psalm: “For the 
Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his 
habitation. This is my rest forever; here will I dwell; 
for I have desired it. I will abundantly bless her 
provision; I will satisfy her poor with bread. I will 
also clothe her priests with salvation; and her saints 
shall shout aloud for joy.” 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


359 


After remarking in his exordium that Zion was the 
seat and center of worship among the Jews, and the 
symbol of the Church of God in all future time, he 
called attention to the leading thought of the text, 
“ God’s presence in the sanctuary the source of light, 
strength, and joyfulness,” or the blessings connected 
with and flowing from the house of God. 

At the close of the sermon, Mr. Coleman dedicated 
the house after the following form, saying, “ It does 
not accord with our ideas of propriety to attach sanc¬ 
tity to a material structure, but it is in harmony with 
our highest conceptions of fitness, and it has the 
sanction of the Holy Scriptures, that we should set 
apart this house, with due solemnity, to the worship 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as a house of 
prayer and praise. 

“ How, therefore, ye covenant people of God, I call 
upon you to arise, and join with me in dedicating to 
the varied uses of a house of God, this beautiful 
temple, erected with so much patient labor and 
sacrifice.” 

The audience then arose and stood, when he said: 

“ We dedicate these walls, and all within them, to 
the joyful worship of the true and living God. Here, 
from year to year, may devout and prayerful wor¬ 
shipers regularly assemble to offer their prayers and 
thanksgivings, and to find the consolations of the 
gospel. 

“ In like manner we dedicate these seats to the use 
of those who may, from time to time, assemble for 
worship within these walls. 

“ We dedicate this pulpit to the faithful preaching 


360 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHEKD. 


of the gospel; may no false doctrines, or hurtful error, 
ever find advocacy from this sacred desk. 

“ We dedicate the place of this choir to the service of 
song in the house of the Lord; here may the harmony 
of sweet sounds, and the sweeter music of loving, 
trustful souls, go up as grateful incense to God. 

“We also dedicate the tower of this house to the 
occupancy of a hell (when hung); may it be a faithful 
sentry to call the people often and regularly to the 
worship of God; and may its soft, shrill tones, as 
they float over the surrounding country, serve to 
quicken the spirit of worship in their hearts as the 
people hasten to this house of God. 

“Finally: May it be said of this house, as it was ot 
Zion of old, that ‘This and that man were born in 
lier. , Here may children and children’s children 
find the consolations of divine grace, and learn the 
way of holiness and peace, -when we, who now dedicate 
this house, shall slumber in the dust. 

“And now, to the King eternal, immortal, invisi¬ 
ble, to the only wise God, be glory in the Church 
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.” 

Kev. Mr. Ford then offered the dedicatory prayer. 

After singing by the choir, the audience were dis¬ 
missed with the benediction. 

Thus, in the beginning of Pastor Coleman’s third 
year, the Church at Unionville found itself in posses¬ 
sion of a neat Church home, all paid for, and with 
the prospect of becoming self-supporting at an early 
day. 

This rapid growth seems almost marvelous for so 
new a community, as compared with the years of weak- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


361 


ness which the most of the denominational churches 
experience. But the marvel will cease when we con¬ 
sider the following facts: 

First, the entire religious strength of the commu¬ 
nity was centered in this one enterprise. Suppose six 
Churches, instead of one, had been organized on the 
same ground? They would have called for the labor 
of as many pastors, whom it would have been difficult, 
if not impossible to support. None of these Churches 
could have built a house of worship, or if attempting 
to do so, they would have erected small and unattract¬ 
ive ones, or they would have involved themselves in 
debts which would have paralyzed their energies. Nor 
is this all. As the result of such division, each sepa¬ 
rate Church would have had only a handful of worship¬ 
ers, with a corresponding diminution of enthusiasm 
on the part of their pastors. It is a fact, abundantly 
sustained in the experience of ministers, that their 
enthusiasm rises or falls with the size of their audi¬ 
ences, and the hopefulness of their Churches. 

As a general rule, ministerial talent grows with the 
size of the congregation to which it ministers. Small 
audiences make small preachers. This fact, while gen¬ 
erally overlooked, is one of great significance to both 
ministers and Churches. It is, however, the natural 
outgrowth of sectarian divisions. It may be safely 
assumed that nearly half of the Churches of our coun¬ 
try are religious weaklings, looking to the stronger 
Churches of their denominations for aid to sustain 
their sect life. 

Again: With the evils already named should be 
linked the practical effect of weak rival Churches 


362 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


upon the non-professing people dwelling near them. 
That effect is. indifference to religion, and a silent 
skepticism as to its reality. 

The grand reason for the prayer of Christ, that his 
disciples might be one was, “ that the world may 
believe that thou hast sent me.” 

The union of all the disciples of Christ at Union- 
ville, on the platform of the Churches founded by the 
Apostles, being a simple fellowship in Christ, with all 
human authority left out, had a most happy effect on 
the minds of the non-professing portion of the com¬ 
munity. It demonstrated the fact that Christian 
love was stronger than love of sect or party, and this 
fact was a moral power which skepticism could not 
withstand. 

This experiment demonstrated the old adage that 
union is strength , division is weakness. 

In consequence of the heavy expense incurred in 
building their meeting house, the Church at Union- 
ville were unable to assume the entire support of Mr. 
Coleman the third year of his pastorate; but with the 
commencement of the fourth year they did so. Not 
only did they raise his entire salary, but at the same 
time a sum sufficient to purchase a bell for their Church 
edifice. 

While thus meeting its financial pledges for their 
home work, the Church also adopted a list of benevo¬ 
lent causes for which they would take up collections. 
The list is as follows: 

1. The American Board of Commissioners for .For¬ 
eign Missions. 

2. The American Home Missionary Society. 


God loveth a cheerful giver.—2 Cor. ix : 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 363 

3. The American Missionary Association, whose 
work is carrying the Gospel to colored people, the 
Indians and the Chinese in our own country. 

4. The Society for aiding to build unsectarian 
Church edifices in all sections of the rapidly developing 
West. 

5. The American Bible Society. 

6. The Society for aiding poor but pious young men 
in preparing for the Christian ministry. 

Instead of taking up separate collections for these 
objects, they had cards printed embracing them all, as 
follows: 


CARD. 


Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as 
God has prospered him.—1 Cor. xvi : 12. 


I subscribe weekly the amount heading the column I 
mark X placing the mark opposite the societies I desire 
to aid, and indicating the time of payment by the same 
mark under the words Quarterly or Yearly. 


AMOUNT IN CENTS. 


A. H. M. S. 

A.B.C.F.M. 

Va 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

+ 

+ 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

15 

20 

25 

50 

100 

Quar¬ 

terly. 

Yearly 











4- 


A. M. Asso. 





4- 











4- 


C. B. Soc 




4- 













4- 


A. B. Soc. . 



+ 














4- 


A.Y.M.forM 



-f 













4- 





















JOHN LOVELL. 









































364 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


These cards were distributed to every member of 
the congregation, old and young, with the request, 
that after indicating the amount each will pledge, to 
pay weekly, in quarterly or yearly installments. Two 
cards were to be marked alike, and signed by the par¬ 
ties receiving them. One to be kept by the subscriber, 
as a remembrancer of the amount so pledged; the 
other to be handed to the Church Treasurer, that he 
may know the amount so pledged. 

The wisdom of this system of benevolencies was at 
once apparent. A much larger number contributed, 
while each one paid more than in the old way of 
taking collections at stated times. This plan worked 
so well that it is still continued in that Church, 
and it will be well for other Churches to adopt the 
same system. 

Mr. Coleman gives a statement of the special work 
of each of these societies, and urges their claims each 
year, at the time of distributing the cards. 

Already these pledges amount in the aggregate to 
over one hundred dollars annually, and the amount is 
yearly increasing. In this system of giving, every¬ 
thing goes like clock-work. There is no momentary 
excitement, no giving from impulse; but on the con¬ 
trary, Mr. Coleman urges each to give from prin¬ 
ciple, under a just apprehension of the importance of 
the work of these societies, in their bearing upon the 
welfare of society at home and the nations abroad. 

Each year as it passes, more fully demonstrates the 
wisdom of union, as enjoyed by the Church of Christ 
at Unionville. Their fellowship is sweet and endear- 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


365 


ing, and their experience of the benefits of union such 
that nothing would induce them to separate. 

In the foregoing narrative we have given the reader 
a glimpse of the fundamental principles of the visible 
Church unity. And he will agree with us that the 
basis adopted by the Church at Unionville is the only 
one upon which visible unity can be either attained or 
maintained. The reader will also agree with us, that 
without such union there can be no full and complete 
answer to the Savior’s prayer, as recorded in John \ 
xvii: 21, 22. 

This narrative also demonstrates the feasibility of 
multiplying such Churches in every part of the land 
and the world. The advantages of such a union are 
apparent in the more economical use of the Lord’s 
money, and the higher grade of ministerial talent 
called into service, with the avoidance of the jealousies 
and rivalships that so break up the spiritual union 
which should, and but for denominationalism would 
everywhere prevail, just as it did in Apostolic times. 

And now we close, with a few pertinent questions: 
Are not the saving of three millions of dollars, now 
annually thrown away, and the time and talents of 
three thousand ministers, also practically wasted, worth 
saving for better use? Is not the object of rolling 
away the reproach of divisions from the body of Christ, 
one that should command the warmest sympathy and 
the heartiest support of all true Christians? 

Dear reader, where do you stand in regard to this 
union movement? Should it not command your most 
serious inquiry? Are you its friend or foe? You 


366 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


cannot be neutral. To be so, is to be against it. The 
Master whom we love, trust and serve has said, “ He 
that is not for us is against us.” Will you give this 
subject your influence, your prayers, and your cordial 
support? 


HOME MISSIONARY UNION POEM. 


O Thou Great Source of light and life divine; 
Who did’st with truth the ancient seers inspire; 
Who sang thy glories in suhlimest verse, 

And with prophetic lore unveiled thy love, 

In its deep purpose to redeem and save 
The ruined race of man. 

Wake thou my harp, 

And on me breathe the true poetic fire, 

To sing in glowing verse, the wondrous theme 
Of Jesus, and his love for dying man: 

The Cross with all its glory, and its shame; 

The great redemption purchased by his blood; 
The Gospel’s moulding power on human hearts, 
To elevate, enlighten, bless, and save: 

To make true patriots, good citizens, good men, 
And thus promote the safety of the State. 


When conscious guilt awoke remorse and fear 
In Eden’s happy pair: as Moses sang: 

Driving them to the covert of the trees, 

To shun their Maker’s presence, as a foe; 

The shameful lie — too easily believed, 
Breeding distrust of their Creator’s love, 

And truth, and wisdom; inspiration gave, 

Of greater good by his command debarred; 
Delusive hope of good apart from God, 

( 367 ) 





368 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


As ignis-fatuus , shining in the dark, 

Leads on its victims to the deep morass, 

And still eludes their grasping evermore; 

Such is delusive hope of good from earth. 

Thus turning from the only source of life, 

They laid the train of all their future ills. 

This curse of sin brought darkness, doubt, and fear 
And turned the smile of God into a frown; 

His love to hatred, gentleness to wrath, 

In their regard; (alas, delusive thought,) 

And drove them from him, back upon themselves. 

Thus sin’s entail has poisoned all the race, 

And still is ever driving men from God: 

Turning his glorious truth into a lie; 

Inflaming passion, working lust and pride ; 

Those forms of selfishness, so potent still: 

And hate, and envy; tyrrany and war; 

And all injustice to the poor and weak; 

Thus making man an enemy to man. 

But this brief catalogue of human ills, 

Shows but too plainly man’s great sin and need: 

How can he rise with soul disordered thus ? 

What human alchemy can work a cure? 

The fountain poisoned, all its streams are vile. 

Man needs a new creating power from Heaven; 

A power most potent to work life from death; 

To heal the stream of evil at its fount, 

The many forms of social wrong to heal, 

And conquer passion, appetite and lust, 

By the sweet ministries of truth and love,— 

Of self-denying, self-forgetting love: 

Thus turning earth’s dark Babel to a Heaven. 

Is this man’s need, and has it been denied ? 

Has the Creator turned away from man ? 

And in his anger doomed him to despair! 

Did he not know that man created thus, 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


S6S» 


With powers, capacities, and tastes divine, 

Free in his choices, like his Maker free ; 

Thus free to love, obey, or disobey, 

Would, like a finite creature, sin and fall? 

He knew, and did a remedy provide, 

From out the bosom of unbounded love; — 

His own compassion brooding over man, 

The brightest, purest gem of Heaven he gave — 

His only son, by angel hosts adored; 

Freely he gave; and Jesus gave himself 
As freely, to redeem and save the lost. 

A brother to the fallen sinful race. 

Bearing their sorrows, weeping o’er their woes: 
Tempted and tried as man, yet without sin, 

That he might feel for men when tempted thus. 

His life of true obedience, sublime; 

His death most tragic for the sin of man — 

Thus by his life and death atonement made 
To the insulted, the dishonored law. 

Does God love sinners ? Unbelief says No, 

And drives us from Him through unholy fear. 

To prove the Father’s love he freely died;— 

His death for us, through love, the strongest, proof 
That God could give of his desire to save 
All who repent, and come to Him in faith. 

How grand the thought! We have a living Christ. 
He triumphed over death, hell, and the grave; 
Ascending to his Father and our God, 

He ever lives to intercede for man. 

With pow T er invested, both in earth and Heaven i 
Power over nature in its various forms,— 

Its laws, its agencies, and its results,— 

Power over mind in all its complex make, 

Of will, affection, sympathy, and hope. 

No mind so dark he cannot give it light; 

24 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


Nor soul so weak he cannot strength impart; 
Nor yet so dead he cannot bring it life. 

He, the Great Helper, truest friend of man; 
The burden bearer of the weak and faint; 
Dispensing pardon to each sin-sick soul; 

By his own strength inspiring life and strength 
To all who come and trust him as their Lord. 


To our own land this word of grace was sent, 
Borne by the Pilgrims, from the Fatherland. 

In this New World its seed has taken root; 

Its fruit is happy men and peaceful homes, 

Where high intelligence and order reigns, 

And deep regard for Virtue, Justice, Law. 

These are the bulwarks of our liberty, 

Our own free government is on them based. 

Let these depart; let ignorance abound; 

Let vice, instead of virtue, rule the land, 

And all the fires of hell would be let loose. 

Bad men and devils, ruling, soon would bring 
Disorders, enmities, with strifes and blood; 

Thieves would abound, and burglars grow bold; 
Robbers and murderers invade our homes, 

Our competence and comforts soon would flee, 

Our safety and our happiness be gone. 

What were our homes and all our comforts worth, 
Where life is insecure, and every man a foe. 

The tribute virtue pays to vice, how dear! 

How much we owe the Gospel, who can tell ? 

What human balance can its blessings weigh ? 

But in this land w r e fondly call our own, 

With its vast stores of virgin strength of soil; 

Its grand deposits of the precious ores; 

Its mines of fuel deeply stored away; 

The woody masses of a primal age; 



ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPIIEKD. 

I 

Its mountain scenery, sublimely grand; 

Its varied climate from tlie frozen North, 

Where Boreal storms with savage fury roar; 

To the soft breezes of the sunny South, 

Where orange groves with balmy fragrance grow, 
And Nature chants her paeans with delight 

In this, our land, so blest of Heaven, there yet 
Remains disorder, ignorance, and vice. 

The Gospel has done much to check the curse 
Of this disorder. But there still remains 
Much of persistent, patient work to do 
For Christ, and for society at large. 

Much ignorance of God and truth remains, 
Needing the Gospel as its only cure. 

Great social evils everywhere abound; 
Intemperance, profanity, and lust 
Walk shamelessly abroad in light of day, 

And flaunt their folly in the face of men. 

Much of dishonesty and greed prevails, 

And men of station sell themselves for gold; 

And bribery and mockery of truth prevails, 
Where men grasp power for low and selfish ends. 

Oh! this insane, this rabid thirst for wealth! 
Poisoning the fountains of our social life, 

And turning all its streams of good to gall. 

To stay these evils, and to work their cure, 
Requires a power both human and divine •— 

The agency of all good men combined, 

In hearty labor and persistent prayer, 

That God will aid them and secure success,— 

To train the young in wisdom’s pleasant way; 

To warn and guard them from the ways of sin. 

The wealthy giving freely of their wealth, 

To bear the Gospel to the worthy poor, 

And the unworthy lost in sin and shame. 


372 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


In all the newer portions of our land, 

Of plain, or prairie, mountains, hill, or dale; 

By Kansas’ stream, with its long affluents fed, 

And the Arkansas, fed from mountain snows, 

With its broad valley, fertile as the Nile, 

And the long Platte, that spans Nebraska State, 

To the Missouri giving up its flood; 

And Mississippi’s vale, so famed abroad, 

Whose waters, flowing from the frozen North, 

Yield up their tribute to the Southern Gulf: 

And where Columbia wends its peaceful way 
To the Pacific, over rocks and sands; 

And California’s thousand hills and streams; 

The Colorado, and the Rio Grande, 

That from the mountains flow both East and West; 
And all the mountain region whence they spring: 

And Utah, with its inland sea of brine, 

And its low people of the Mormon faith; 

And Arizona, with its precious mines; 

And the broad region of New Mexico; 

And Texas, with its wealth of wood and plain, 

With its rich grasses and prolific soil. 

Along these streams, where once the savage roamed, 
And sought the buffalo and wild gazelle, 

And lit his camp fires in a thousand glens. 

In all these regions briefly thus defined, 

Affording homesteads for ten million men, 

Cities and villages are rising fast, 

And farms are opening o’er this vast expanse, 

By poor, but young and energetic men.— 

Poor in material wealth, but rich in pluck, 

To break and cultivate the virgin soil; 

To build, and plant, and make the desert smile. 

These new communities the Gospel need, 

To check the tendencies to vice and crime. 

The ministrations of the house of God, 

So grateful to their sires, the children need, 

In their removal to their Western homes; 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


373 


But in their poverty and pressing want 
Are quite unable the expense to meet, 

In but small part, till time shall give them strength. 

What should the older, stronger Churches do? 
Whose members have grown rich through honest toil; 
And ease and plenty crown their pleasant homes? 
Should they not give from out their stores, to aid 
In spreading Gospel truth in all the West? 

In imitation of their blessed Lord 
And Master, who himself, though rich^ 

In ownership of worlds, and praises due, 

Rich in all bliss, and glory unconfined, 

Yet became poor. Laid all this glory by — 

Veiling it all in human flesh, that we 
Might become rich in all Celestial grace; 

Might put a true and noble manhood on, 

And follow him in self-denying love. 

All those who thus benevolently give, 

To aid the work of missions through the land, 

A richer blessing in themselves receive:— 

The noble consciousness of doing good, 

And the rich favor of their gracious Lord, 

Who smiles approvingly upon their work. 

A Christly character they thus work out, 

And have their natures moulded into love. 

In this grand work, done for our own dear land, 
Work of Domestic Missions — doubly blest — 

Blessing the giver and receiver both:— 

Economy the strictest should prevail. 

No waste of money for mere party ends; 

No waste of ministerial force should be allowed. 

All who love Christ are brethren. Should they strive 
For name, or sect, and thus their strength divide! 

Each other hinder in this work of love, 

In the unholy strife for party ends ? 

If sects must be, and Christians work for sect, 

Then let the sects agree, on different fields, 

By Christian conference, harmoniously sweet; 


ONE FOLDr AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


As Abraham of old to Lot proposed, 

“ If thou wilt take the right, then I the left; 

But if the left shall please thee best, then I 
Will take the right. Let there no strivings be 
Between us; we are brethren and friends.” 

Such waste of time and money I am sure, 

Must be displeasing to our common Lord, 

Who prayed that all his people might be one: 
One in their sympathies, their prayers and toils. 
United thus in fellowship and work. 

No sects are known in Heaven, why on earth? 
And in the Church’s golden age to come! — 

The great millenial age by prophets sung,— 
Parties, and names, and sects will disappear, 

His servants he will call by a new name, 

Which he will give, a name sublimely grand. 

Then all ye marshaled hosts of God arise; 

Ye reaping angels of the Lord go forth; 

The harvest time of earth has now arrived; 

Go gather in the souls of men to Christ. 

Let holy, quenchless zeal your hearts inflame; 
Go preach the Gospel, as with tongues of fire, 

To all these rising settlements go forth. 

And ye who aid to send the Word of Life, 

Bring all your tithes and offerings to the Lord; 
The cattle of a thousand hills are his, 

And his the gold and silver of your mines; 

The fruitage, also, of your fields and trees; 

And you are his, by his redeeming love: 

Your all you, therefore, owe to him, and more, 
And yet he asks you but a tenth of all. 

Enlightened love will never give him less; 

A tenth is but the minimum for each, 

His providence may even ask for half, 

And in some cases he demands the whole: 

As in the day of Pentecost, when all. 

With one accord, each his possessions sold, 

And laid the prices at the Apostles’ feet. 


ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD. 


375 


Great providential calls demand great gifts, 

And special blessings follow those who give: 

The genial sunshine, and the timely rain, 

By which all vegetation springs to birth, 

And brings the golden harvest in its time; 

These are to such by special promise given, 

Who with their substance honor God, are blest: 
Who bring the first fruits of their flocks and herds; 
Fruits of the vine, the tree, the fields are blest; 
Their barns and presses overflow with wealth; 

And peace and joy abide as constant guests. 





APPENDIX. 


DIFFICULTIES IK THE WAY OF VISIBLE 
CHURCH UNION. CAN THEY BE 
REMOVED ? HOW ? 


The difficulties to visible Church unity are appar¬ 
ently great, and doubtless to many good men seem 
insurmountable. Among them are the following: 

1. The Influence of Sect Education. 

The great mass of our Christian population are 
more or less under its sway. Almost everyone has 
his denominational preferences. Forms of worship 
and doctrinal beliefs have much influence on most 
minds. Early religious associations often mould our 
thinking; and that with which we are familiar we 
learn to love. It comes to pass also from these sect 
influences that we silently drink in prejudices against 
other denominations, and so fail to understand or 
appreciate their Christian excellencies. It thus hap¬ 
pens that our religious attachments are partial, and a 
subtle partyism controls our religious activities. Nor is 
this singular, considering our partial ignorance and mis¬ 
apprehension of truth and duty. The Apostles them¬ 
selves were under such religious prejudice against the 
( 377 ) 




378 


APPENDIX. 


Gentiles that it was a number of years after the 
ascension of the Savior before the Gospel was preached 
to them. And so deep were those prejudices that it 
required a vision from heaven to lead Peter to preach 
the Gospel to Cornelius and his household. And it 
was only after Peter had rehearsed to the disciples at 
Jerusalem the fact of the vision and the descent of 
the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his gathered 
friends, that they were led to exclaim: “Then hath 
God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto 
life.” 

2. Great Sect interests also stand in the way of visible 
unity. Denominational colleges and theological sem¬ 
inaries, with innumerable church edifices and other 
denominational appendages. These have all been 
brought into being to promote denominational inter¬ 
ests; for each of the sects entertain the opinion that 
their methods of work are the best, and each regards 
itself as the conservator of some special religious 
truth which depends upon its pulpits and presses for 
advocacy. 

It is thus that sect interests stir and control the 
religious activities of the several denominations. It 
is to such considerations that we are to trace the 
efforts of the denominational Churches to erect their 
separate standards on the same field, and to impress 
their shibboleths upon the community. It thus hap¬ 
pens that from two to ten different church organiza¬ 
tions crowd in where there is room and work for only 
one; standing thus in each other’s way and mutually 
neutralizing each the other’s influence. 

If a rich, warm soil will cause weeds to grow, then 


APPENDIX. 


379 


as surely will these denominational rivalries produce 
jealousies and secret alienations between those who 
should, and, were it not for this state of things, would 
be united in warm Christian fellowship. 

It is very easy and plausible to say that such jeal¬ 
ousies and alienations are wrong, and that Christians 
should live above them, and then plead for spiritual 
unity between the sects. But that does not remove 
the evil. Just so long as sect interests clash will that 
state of things continue. While fire continues to 
burn, and water to run down hill, so long will sect 
rivalries prevail, till we remove them by removing 
their cause. 

We are having all the spiritual unity we can so long 
as denominational interests put the Churches of 
Christ into antagonism to each other. Denomina¬ 
tional comity may in some small degree mitigate, but 
cannot remove the evil. 

With all the apparent friendliness between the 
sects, and respect for the feelings and opinions of each 
other, there is often a subtle denominational selfish¬ 
ness which would gladly undermine other church 
interests to promote its own; and if there is less of 
open opposition to other Churches than formerly, it 
is because spirit of the times will not allow it. It is 
thus that policy and expediency assume a kind of 
Protestant Jesuitism, and gloss over the spirit of sect. 

While such is too often the case, we should also 
note a growing spirit of charity between the members 
of the different denominational Churches. They rec¬ 
ognize each other as fellow disciples, and work 


380 


APPENDIX. 


together in various ways to promote the cause of 
temperance, morality, and religion. 

There is also all shades of denominational feeling, 
from intense sectism to a broad catholicity which sees 
so much in common and so little of real difference in 
whatever is vital between the sects, that it can work 
and worship with them all. 

It is pleasant to notice that this catholicity of feel¬ 
ing is steadily growing; for its general prevalence 
will eventuate in that oneness which is the soul and 
life of visible church unity. 

The above facts find expression in a conversation 
between the writer and three ministers of as many 
denominations, who met at a county Sabbath school 
convention in Kansas. They are here represented by 
the letters P., M., and B. Mr. P., addressing the 
writer, said: 

“ Mr. S., I learn that you are preparing a treatise 
on Visible Church Unity.” 

“ Yes,” I replied. 

“And I am informed that you advocate the break¬ 
ing up of all the denominational Churches, and of 
having them amalgamated into one great sect.” 

“ To that charge I answer both yes and no. I am 
in favor of putting away sectarian divisions, and of 
uniting all the disciples of Christ in each locality in 
all the land into one unsectarian undenominational 
Church, to be known only as the Church of Christ in 
that place. I however repudiate the idea of forming 
them into one grand sect. That idea was the ambi¬ 
tious dream of Kome — a worldly hierarchy, with a 
centralized controlling power to enact and execute 


APPENDIX. 


381 


laws for maintaining visible unity, which killed true 
unity and misnamed its semblance uniformity .” 

Here Mr. M. interposed with the inquiry: 

“ Mr. S., have you any idea that the unity for which 
you contend will ever take place?” 

“Why not, Mr. M.f” I replied. “If I thought it 
unattainable I could have no object in working for it. 
Are we to suppose that the present divided state of 
the church is always to continue, with the evils 
attendant? I leave it to your judgment to say 
if there is not great need of it.” 

“ As to that,” he replied, “ it would be pleasant if it 
could take place; but, considering the diversity of 
opinions between the different denominations, I think 
it neither possible nor desirable; for I apprehend that 
such a union would soon burst asunder by the explo¬ 
sive force of the conflicting ideas entertained within 
the body, thus making matters worse than they now 
are.” 

“ Please explain yourself,” I replied. 

“How can two walk together except they be 
agreed?” said he, quoting Scripture. 

Mr. B.’s eyes sparkled, and he said: 

“ Yes, I would like to have Mr. S. answer that 
question.” 

I replied: “Mr. M., you are a member and minis¬ 
ter in a great evangelical denomination. Are there 
no diversities of opinion among the members of your 
societies upon various religious questions?” 

“In what respects?” said he. 

“ Do not some of your people regard immersion as 
the Scriptural mode of baptism, while others deem 


382 


APPENDIX. 


pouring or sprinkling as the mode taught in the 
Bible? 

“And you practice either mode, as best meets the 
moral convictions of those baptized?” 

“ That is all very true,” he rejoined. 

“Ah, Brother M., 4 how can two walk together ex¬ 
cept they be agreed ? ’ ” 

Mr. P. smiled, for he saw that I had taken Mr. M. 
in his own trap. His own confession proved his mis¬ 
application of that quotation. 

Mr. M. tried to extricate himself by saying: “In 
such minor matters we allow the largest liberty of 
thought and action, because they do not affect Chris¬ 
tian character.” 

“Then it seems your people can walk together 
although there are diversities of opinions on such 
minor matters, and your quotation is misapplied. 
Now, Brother M., you must be aware that upon all 
the great doctrines of the Bible affecting Christian 
character there is now a substantial agreement between 
the several denominations, while whatever of diversity 
of opinions still subsisting are upon questions of 
speculative theology not clearly set forth in the Bible, 
because they are matters but remotel} 7 connected with 
the Christian life, and do not interfere with brotherly 
love and the fellowship founded upon it.” 

Mr. M. was silent, so Mr. B. replied: 

“Me, as a denomination, regard baptism as too im¬ 
portant a matter to be passed over in that way. Me 
believe there can be no valid baptism but immersion, 
and no church membership without baptism; and so 
we think there can be no visible church unity till all 


APPENDIX. 


383 


the other Christian societies come onto our platform 
and are duly immersed into the Church.” 

To this Mr. P. replied: “I think the day is far 
distant when all Christians will unite on that plat¬ 
form.” 

“Yes,” said Mr. M., “that event will never take 
place till you can bring a plain, positive command — 
a ‘Thussaith the Lord: immersion is baptism, and 
baptism is immersion.’ Now, Brother B., if you will 
quote chapter and verse where such a command is 
recorded, we will all turn Baptists.” 

To this Mr. B. replied: “While there is no specific 
command for immersion, yet we think all the cir¬ 
cumstantial evidence points in that direction.” 

“ That is, with your interpretation of certain pass¬ 
ages of Scripture you infer that Christ was immersed 
in his baptism, and that such was the Apostolic prac¬ 
tice.” 

“Yes,” said Mr. B., “that is it exactly.” 

“But,” interposed Mr. F., “is it not possible that 
your interpretations and inferences are wrong? ” 

“ I think not,” he replied. 

“ I suppose you know that the Biblical scholars of 
other denominations draw quite different inferences 
from the same passages of Scripture, and fail to find 
any evidence for immersion in them. One of two 
things must therefore be true: either you must set up 
the claim of infallibility as interpreters of the Bible, 
or admit that you are as liable to be mistaken in this 
matter as they are. 

“As it would be folly for us to claim infallibility, it 
is possible that we have misapprehended the teachings 


384 


APPENDIX. 


of the Word; but to my mind tlie probabilities are 
all in our favor.” 

Here Mr. M. came in witliliis thought: 

“ Brother B., suppose it could be proved to a cer¬ 
tainty that Christ was immersed in his baptism by 
John in Jordan, would that prove that immersion was 
the only allowable mode; or could you prove that the 
Apostles sometimes practiced immersion, would that 
be evidence that they always did so? 55 

“I admit that it would not be positive proof; it 
would only be inferential,” said Mr. B. 

Mr. M. continued: “Brother B., we learn that on 
certain occasions the Apostles knelt in prayer. We 
have positive testimony on that point.” 

“ Yes,” said Mr. B. 

“ But,” resumed Mr. M., “ while that proves kneel¬ 
ing to be an Apostolic practice, does it prove that they 
always knelt in prayer or that kneeling is any part of 
prayer? 5 

“ I think not, 55 he replied. 

“And you stand or kneel, just as circumstances or 
habit seems to make the most appropriate? 55 

“ Yery true, 55 said Mr. B. 

“You are not consistent with your principles, 55 said 
Mr. M. “You are so strenuous for Apostolic example 
in the case of baptism that you disfellowship all who 
do not receive immersion for that rite, and can have 
no visible church unity with them; while in regard 
to another Apostolic practice you think yourself at 
liberty to depart from it. There is not as much proof 
for immersion as for kneeling; for the Psalmist says: 


APPENDIX. 


385 


‘ O come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel 
before the Lord our Maker.’ ” 

Mr. P. then started this inquiry: “ Mr. B., if this 
question of mode in baptism is as important as you 
think it to be, is it not a little singular that the Mas¬ 
ter did not settle it with a specific command? As he 
had an all-comprehending knowledge of the future of 
his church, he knew that his disciples in these latter 
times would disagree in their opinions and cause divi¬ 
sion in the Church over this question.” 

“ That is certainly so,” said Mr. B., with a thought¬ 
ful expression of countenance. 

Mr. P. continued: “ If, knowing these facts, he did 
not think the mode of sufficient importance for a spe¬ 
cific command, would it not be well for us to leave it 
in the same indefinite condition, and let each disciple 
settle it for himself, and not for another?” 

At this turn of the affair both Mr. M. and myself 
could not repress a smile at Mr. B.’s evident confu¬ 
sion. At length he said: “ I suppose it must come to 
this finally.” 

Here I interposed and said: “ In that case the prac¬ 
tice of restricted communion will cease, and there will 
be nothing to prevent visible Church unity on your 
part; so that bar to the visible communion of the 
saints will drop of itself.” 

Mr. B. replied: “ If our views have been wrong in 
the past, then they should be corrected, and the 
restricted communion based upon them should 
cease.” 

I then added: “ I have no doubt that our Baptist 
brethren have acted very conscientiously in this mat- 
25 


BS6 


APPENDIX. 


ter. They have aimed to be true to the Master, and 
for their intended fidelity are worthy of praise. As I 
look at it their fault has been in taking for granted 
the very thing which needed proving. By so doing 
they have assumed to decide a question which the 
Master has left indefinite. By leaving it in the future 
just where the Savior has left it, as I said, one of the 
chief bars to visible Church unity will be removed. 

“And now, brethren,” I continued, “ it seems to me 
that this question of unity is quite generally mis¬ 
understood, as well as the essential conditions upon 
which it can take place. Some there are who, while 
pleading for spiritual unity, see no special harm in 
sect divisions, and even plead that these divisions are 
necessary for the purity of the Churches. Others 
mistake a stereotyped uniformity for unity. It is 
admitted all around that without spiritual oneness 
there can be no real visible unity. A worldly consol¬ 
idated ecclesiasticism may exist without it, but that 
would not be Christian union.” 

“ So far we agree with you,” they replied. 

“Then this spiritual unity should not be contra¬ 
dicted and interfered with by flagrant divisions.” 

“ I feel the force of that remark,” said Mr. P. 

The other gentlemen nodded assent to Mr. P.’s 
statement. He then added: “ But I think I see insur¬ 
mountable difficulties in the way.” 

“ Please to name some of them,” I replied. 

He proceeded: “ Here are our denominational col¬ 
leges, and theological seminaries, with our church edi¬ 
fices, great book-publishing houses, and other Church 
property. All these have been secured inalienably by 


APPENDIX. 


3ST 


deed for denominational purposes. There is a va6t 
amount of money invested in these buildings. Now, 
if I understand it, your plan of union contemplates 
the breaking up and subversion of all these.” 

“ Not at all,” I replied. “ I see that you fail to get 
the true idea of general visible Church unity. The plan 
contemplates the disrupting of nothing but the secta¬ 
rian divisions. It proposes the union of all these in¬ 
terests. If in the union there shall be found useless 
property on hand in the shape of church edifices and 
the like ? let these be sold for other purposes, and the 
funds used for the good of the churches uniting, in 
the more efficient prosecution of the work of the 
Master.” 

“ Mr. S., will you please suppose a case to illustrate 
your idea?” said Mr. M. 

In reply I said: “ Take the case of a small village 
of 800 or 1,000 inhabitants. There are only people 
enough, should they all go to church at one time to 
fill a good-sized church edifice, but they are divided 
into four different denominations, each with a small 
meeting house, and each claiming the time and labor 
of a pastor to work for their denominational inter¬ 
ests. Here^hen, are four men to do the work that 
one could do better than the four. One-half the 
money expended in building their four church edifices 
would have built a handsome structure large enough 
to hold them all. These churches are evangelical. 
They hold to the same great saving truths of the Gos¬ 
pel, and their pastors preach them. There is nothing 
which divides them except sect names and a few theo¬ 
retic distinctions of no practical value whatever. 


3S8 


APPENDIX. 


They are now burdening themselves to sustain four 
pastors and the other added church expenses. Now 
suppose these four churches were to wake up to a 
sense of the false attitude they sustain to each other, 
and the practical effect of their divisions in the skep¬ 
ticism and religious indifference of the non-professing 
portion of the community. After canvassing the 
whole question they come to the determination to 
unite on the simple basis of Christian fellowship 
only, leaving each member entirely free to cherish his 
personal pet ideas. In so doing, instead of restricting 
they enlarge their fellowship. They extend it to all 
who love the Savior. They take no name but that of 
4 The Church of Christ.’ Being unsectarian and 
undenominational, they stand on the platform of the 
Apostolic Churches, and, like them, extend fellowship 
to all other Churches of Christ in the several denom¬ 
inations. So, uniting, they have three supernumerary 
church edifices to sell, with the funds from which 
they can enlarge and refit the fourth, and make it a 
pleasant church home for them all. They could retain 
one of the four pastors, or, dismissing them all, to go 
to more needy fields, they could call a new man to the 
pastorate of their church. Having fourfolded the 
financial strength of any of the former four, they are 
now able to support a pastor and do much more in 
the cause of general benevolence. 

“ You will also notice that in this case there would 
be no denominational triumph, for there would be no 
one church swallowing up another, and consequently 
no ground for disaffections and jealousies. 

44 Nor could anyone object to the idea of a proper 


APPENDIX. 


389 


self-government under tlie inspiration and leadership 
of the Holy Spirit. And where all authority except 
Christ is ruled out, and all legislative and judicial 
powers are invested in him, there can be no dissatis¬ 
factions. Thus you see there is no breaking up of 
anything except the divisions.” 

My three ministerial friends were silent. A new 
light was dawning on their minds. 

I continued: “Suppose this work of unifying the 
churches should take place in every, hamlet and vil¬ 
lage in our land. Instead of producing weakness, it 
would add strength; instead of working rivalries and 
jealousies with the spiritual alienations which too 
commonly arise between rival churches, it would do 
them away. Thus there would be an increase of 
peace, harmony, and efficiency in all departments 
of Christian work. The same would be true of our 
colleges and theological seminaries. This work of 
unity would only strip them of the sect spirit and 
of denominational names. But it would add greatly 
to their efficiency as the schools of the prophets.” 

“ The picture you draw is a pleasant one,” said Mr. 
P., “ but I fear more difficult to carry into execution 
than you think.” 

“ I think I have considered the difficulties in all their 
aspects, but possibly have overlooked some of them. 
Please to name them,” I replied. 

“ I suppose you are aware that a minority of one in 
any denominational church can prevent the sale and 
transfer of church property.” 

“ I am aware of that,” I replied. 

“ Suppose, then,” he continued, “in any given case 


390 


APPENDIX. 


there should be one or more opposed to the proposed 
unity, and should exercise their vested rights of veto¬ 
ing the proposed transfer: what can be done in that 
case?” 

“ It is not as difficult as you suppose. Such per¬ 
sons could, if they were mulish enough, prevent the 
sale and transfer of property; but they could not pre¬ 
vent the members of the church to vote each other 
letters of dismission to form an undenominational 
church. Besides, this union movement contemplates 
a growth of Christian sentiment in the future which 
will make such union movements popular and suc¬ 
cessful. When such movements become popular, in 
view of the benefits they will bring, it will be hard 
for such mulish persons to stand up under the odium 
they would bring upon themselves by opposing so 
Christian a movement.” 

“ That is only one of the difficulties in the way,” 
Mr. P. replied. “ The great body of the Presbyteri¬ 
ans, and I presume that it is so with the Methodists, 
prefer their own order and church government, and 
will not be in haste to throw away that which they 
have tried and found to work well for a thing they 
have not tried and so know nothing about.” 

To this objection of Mr. P. I answered: “So far as 
forms of worship are to be considered, this union 
movement proposes to let each church settle them for 
itself, just as Brother M. says the members of his 
church do in regard to the mode of baptism. In 
regard to the polity or government of the church, the 
idea of a self-governing church is not a new or untried 
one. It only proposes to place the government of 


APPENDIX. 


391 


each church in the hands of the majority of its mem¬ 
bers. That is, in all questions of expediency in the 
work of the church, to let the voice of the majority 
control. That was the practice of the Apostolic 
churches, as the New Testament records most abun¬ 
dantly show. Large bodies of Christians in modern 
times have tried it with eminent success, and among 
them I will name the different branches of the great 
Baptist family. The great Congregational body, both 
in England and the United States, have tested it for 
over two hundred years, and of all the denominations 
none have maintained a higher standard of purity, 
intelligence, social order, or church efficiency. You 
see, therefore, that the democratic idea of a govern¬ 
ment lor the people, by the people, works just as well 
in church matters as it does in civil government. So, 
without being at all cynical in regard to other forms 
of church government, I am well satisfied that the 
polity of the Apostolic churches must in the end 
bear off the palm. "Whatever excellencies may char¬ 
acterize either the Presbyterian or Episcopal forms of 
church government, they are not equally adapted to 
secure the peace and harmony and especially the unity 
of the Churches of Christ with that which character¬ 
ized the churches founded by the Apostles.” 

“ Mr. S., admitting the truth of your statement, still 
the difficulty remains. Those churches are large and 
strong, and are doing a good work for Christ and the 
world. Conscious of this, and satisfied with the 
forms of government they have adopted, they will not 
be easily turned aside from doing the work which they 
feel Providence lays upon them.” 


392 


APPENDIX. 


Daring this part of our conversation I observed 
that Mr. B. sympathized with the views expressed by 
myself, while Mr. M. sided strongly with Mr. P. 

I answered: “There is much truth in your state¬ 
ments, Mr. P. I have no doubt that you have cor¬ 
rectly reported the views and feelings of the two great 
evangelical bodies to which yourself and Mr. M. have 
the honor to belong. I have no idea that a great and 
sudden change will take place upon this question. 
This movement in favor of visible church unity is yet 
in its incipient stage. The churches are just begin¬ 
ning to wake up to the discovery of the evils of divi¬ 
sion. It will take an age to educate the churches 
fully out of sectarianism. It is a reform which will 
tenfold the power of the Church of Christ; but, like 
other great reforms, it will progress by stages till the 
end is reached, and there will be but One Fold and 
One Shepherd; that fold a united Church, and that 
shepherd Christ, who is the Shepherd and Bishop of 
his united flock.” 

Mr. B. had listened with much interest to the con¬ 
versation, and finally remarked to Messrs. P. and M.: 
“ There is great force in the views just expressed by 
Mr. S ” 

Having been drawn into this train of thought, I 
felt it would be well to direct their minds to an evil 
which, as I view it, lay at the bottom of our sectarian 
divisions. So I continued: “Brethren, we have all 
been educated under the influence of a churchism 
unwittingly drawn from the Boman Catholic hier¬ 
archy. It is what I call the papistic element. It 
manifests itself in church authority. Its tendency is 


APPENDIX. 


393 


to unduly exalt one class of men and make them 
rulers, not in , but over the household of God. Its 
excuse is the better ordering of the church and its 
work. I do not refer to those plans of expediency 
which, by the voluntary action of the churches in 
council, they may adopt, the more effectually to carry 
out the explicit commands of the ‘ one Master.’ I 
refer here to the incorporation into the polity of the 
church the principle of church power and authority , 
which subordinates the local churches of a province 
or nation to the authority and control of a class of 
men who exercise legislative and judicial authority, 
and whose decisions are binding upon the churches 
over which they preside. 

“ This idea of church authority for the better order¬ 
ing of the house of God, as I said, we have drawn 
from the Roman Catholic Church. It was a power 
which grew up in that Church to take the place of the 
true unity of the early Churches, which was lost 
when the cementing element of Christian love was 
lost in the formalism and deadness which succeeded 
the Apostolic age. 

“ It is a distinguishing weakness of our fallen human 
nature that it loves and seeks to grasp and exercise 
power. It it is a weakness that grace does not eradi¬ 
cate, but aims to control. A bad man seeks power for 
selfish and worldly ends. A good man willingly 
accepts it, that he may use it for the good of the 
Church and the glory of God. It is, however, a char¬ 
acteristic of human nature that it does not know its 
weakness, and hence, without intending it, good men 
often abuse power placed in their hands The dissen- 


394 


APPENDIX. 


sions and divisions in the Church have arisen mainly 
from the abuse of power so entrusted. Now, if this 
element of power, when placed in the hands of men 
in civil affairs, has to be hedged about with checks to 
prevent abuse, when men are bound together in the 
political relation, not by Christian love, but by mutual 
self-interest, and wdiere personal ill feeling does not 
work division in the body politic, how careful should 
Christian men be not to admit in the polity of the 
Church any element that will work division. For in 
Church affairs it is not self-interest, but brotherly love 
which is the bond of union. Any undue exercise of 
power, or abuse of it, will dampen, and often destroy 
love. It is evident, therefore, that Christ could not 
legalize anything in his house which would give play 
to this papistic element. He must therefore have 
ruled it out, since it is the fruitful source of division.” 

“ But has he done so, and if so, where? ” said Mr. M. 

“Do you remember the circumstance narrated by 
the evangelist, where the mother of Zebedee’s children 
made a request that her two sons might be exalted to 
seats of power in Christ’s kingdom, and the practical 
effect of that request upon the minds of the disciples, 
in their indignation toward these two brethren, know¬ 
ing that their mother was the spokesman of their am¬ 
bition? Do you also recollect the answer Christ gave 
her: ‘ye know not what ye ask’? Then, calling his 
disciples unto him, he said: ‘ Ye know that the princes 
of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they 
that are great exercise authority upon them; but it 
shall not be so among you, but whosoever will be great 


APPENDIX. 


395 


among you, let him be your minister’ (your servant). 
Matth. xx : 25, 26. 

“ There brother M., is the answer to your question. 
And now, I leave it to you three to say if, in that lan¬ 
guage, Christ does not rule out all authority except his 
own? Does not the spirit of this teaching also harmo¬ 
nize with that given by him, Matth. xxiii : 8, 9, 10: 
‘But be ye not called Babbi (Master): for one is your 
Master, even Christ’? When he thus forbids all mas¬ 
tership in his Church, he makes himself sole master 
in his own household. And, brethren, if you will 
carefully examine these and kindred passages, you will 
find that he aims to save his servants from the corrupt¬ 
ing influence of an ambition for greatness and power, 
and that all ambition is essentially sinful which does 
not have its root in a perfected Christly love.” 

“ That is a great and practically important truth,” 
said Mr. B. The other two gentlemen assented. 

“It then comes to this. The true idea of the 
Church is that of a simple ‘ Fellowship of believers 
in Christ; ’ and this fellowship is based upon the evi¬ 
dence each gives the other that they are regenerated 
through the Holy Spirit, by faith in Christ, as their 
personal Savior, and the love to him and our fellow 
disciples, which the Holy Spirit awakens in every 
regenerate heart.” 

“Yes, yes, yes,” each responded, in turn. 

“ And now, brethren, what else is needed to com¬ 
plete the fellowship?” I inquired. 

“ Well, really, I do not know that anything is 
needed,” said Mr. F. 

Mr. B. suggested, “ Obedience.” 


396 


APPENDIX. 


“ But obedience is one of tbe evidences of a regen¬ 
erate soul, and works itself out in a changed life,” I 
replied. 

“ That is very true,” said Mr. M. 

“Should we demand anything as a condition ot 
receiving a professed believer in Christ to our fellow¬ 
ship that He does not require as a condition of receiving 
and pardoning a penitent sinner?” 

“ Certainly not,” each of these brethren answered, 
in turn. 

“ Then to make assent to some creed a condition, or 
to require the performance of some duty not clearly 
enjoined by the Master, precedent to His receiving 
them, would be requiring a condition of fellowship 
nowhere enjoined by him, and so a usurpation of 
authority which must practically work division in the 
body of Christ.” 

This conclusion was so self-evident that they at once 
admitted its truth. 

“And now I raise this question: Have not all the 
dissensions and divisions which have ever arisen 
among the professed disciples of Christ, been caused 
by this papistic element of church authority, which, 
as I said in the outset, has been borrowed uncon¬ 
sciously from the Eoman Catholic Church ? ” 

“We cannot deny the truth of your conclusions,” 
said Mr. M. 

“ Then it follows that in order to bring the Church 
into visible unity and concentrate its forces in winning 
the world to Christ, we must thrust out this demon of 
discord from each of the churches, and treat him as a 


APPENDIX. 


397 


disturber of the peace and unity of the household of 
faith.” 

“ Yes, that is so,” responded Mr. B. 

“ Then, to treat this disturber as a respectable fel¬ 
low, and give him influence and authority in the 
Church, would be impolitic and unwise?” 

To this conclusion each again assented. 

“ It follows, therefore, that each of the denomina¬ 
tional churches should eliminate this papistic element 
from their respective polities, and bring their local 
churches onto the platform of a Fellowship of Chris¬ 
tians. This done, with all denominational names 
thrown aside, the last bar to visible Christian and 
Church Union would be removed, and the Church 
would flow together and unite like so many drops of 
water.” 

Mr. P. then remarked: “ I do not see how the unity 
that you advocate can ever take place without destroy¬ 
ing the peculiar polity of the Presbyterian churches.” 

“And I see the same difficulty in regard to the 
Methodist churches,” said Mr. M. 

“ Brethren, just so far as that element is embodied 
in either of these great and good churches, it ought to 
be destroyed. This can be done without injuring 
either their piety or their efficiency. It need not 
occasion any unkind or violent commotion. Like all 
other changes looking to the more successful working 
of church machinery, it can take place after the 
churches are prepared for it by kind Christian dis¬ 
cussion.” 

Mr. M. answered: “Me, as Methodists, are so well 
satisfied with the working of our church machinery 


398 


APPENDIX. 


that I have no idea we shall ever give it up or materi¬ 
ally change it.” 

“And I think just so in regard to the Presby¬ 
terian,” said Mr. P. 

“ Brother M., have you any idea that all Christians 
will become Methodists?” 

“ No,” he replied. 

“Brother P., do you cherish the thought that all 
will yet become Presbyterians? ” 

“ I have not a dream in that direction,” said he. 

“ Then, from your own confessions, the Church of 
Christ must continue in a divided state, through all 
future time. But in that case, who will be responsible 
for the continuation of this state of things?” 

“ Why,” said Mr. B. who had been a silent listener 
for some time, “ those who prefer their church 
machinery to the unity of the Church.” 

“ Have not the Congregationalists and Baptists 
something to eliminate from their polities, too, as a 
condition of visible unity,” said Mr. M. 

“Just so far as this papistic element has entered 
into the spirit and polity of those churches, it should 
and I venture to say it will be thus eliminated.” 

“So far as the polity of the Baptist churches is 
concerned, I know of but one thing that stands in the 
way of visible church unity, and that is the one that 
we were discussing a short time since. Throw out 
immersion, and the restricted communion based upon 
it, from their polity, and they are ready to drop into 
visible unity with all other churches. 

“ In regard to the Congregational churches of the 
world, it will be found that they stand so nearly on 


APPENDIX. 


399 


this platform of unity that, without any organic 
changes in their polity, they are prepared to come into 
visible unity with all evangelical churches. They 
would have but to drop the denominational name and 
it would be done. 

“ Finally, brethren, there are but one or two things 
that need be said as to the possibility or conditions of 
the unity for which I plead. I think you fail to dis¬ 
criminate between the Church and the machinery by 
which you build that divine structure. When an 
architect is to erect a building he places scaffolding 
around it, for the safety and convenience of the me¬ 
chanics. But it is no part of the building, and as 
soon as the work has reached a condition of forward¬ 
ness in which it is no longer needed, it is removed, in 
order that the beauty of the structure may be seen. 

Presbyterian and Methodist machinery are as but 
the scaffolding to a building. They have each served 
a useful purpose in the building up of the great spir¬ 
itual House of God. They are of human origin, and 
seemed the best at the command of the workmen. 
But they are like all things of human origin, imper¬ 
fect in themselves, and exceedingly liable to abuse. 
They were not designed to be a permanent fixture of 
the house, and so, sooner or later, will be removed.” 

Mr. B. remarked: “The scaffolding employed by 
the Apostles was such as the head Architect himself 
devised and authorized, not indeed as a part of the 
building, but because of its adaptation to meet the 
wants of all the builders, and on which they can all 
stand and work harmoniously together. So, brethren, 
if we wish to show the visible unity which character- 


400 


APPENDIX. 


ized the Apostolic Churches, we must adopt their 
spirit and polity.” 

“ Yes,” I replied, “both must go together. The 
polity is a rope of sand without the spirit of love, for 
this only can give the unity which is to have its mani¬ 
festation in fellowship.” 

Mr. P. then remarked: “Mr. S., your views com¬ 
mend themselves as just and right, and are not im¬ 
practicable, as I supposed. But, as I said before, a 
great change must yet take place before the churches 
will be prepared to adopt them.” 

“ That is very true,” I replied, “ but how are the 
churches to be awakened to a proper sense of the evils 
growing out of the divided state of the Church, on 
the one hand, and the many and great advantages 
which will arise when the unity which characterized 
the Apostolic churches is attained? How, unless their 
attention is called to it, and it becomes a subject of 
earnest thought and discussion? ” 

“ And all the facts are taken into consideration to 
which our minds have been directed this afternoon,” 
said Mr. B. 

Mr. M. remarked: “ I suppose that to be the special 
object you have in preparing your work on church 
unity.” 

' “ Yes,” I replied, “ I have made it a subject of care¬ 
ful study, and have sought to investigate it in all its 
aspects. These thoughts I have embodied in the man¬ 
uscripts I am preparing for publication. I have dis¬ 
cussed the difficulties and misapprehensions which 
stand in the way of unity, with the view to their 
removal. I think I am directing attention to the only 


APPENDIX. 


401 


basis upon which every disciple of Christ can stand, 
without the surrender of anything he may regard ai 
truth and duty.” 

Mr. M. then said: “ I am aware that the existence 
of even two denominational churches in the same 
neighborhood can be viewed in no other light than 
rivals, and I am also conscious that such rivalship 
does hinder the expression of brotherly love. I have 
known seasons of revival suddenly terminated in con¬ 
sequence of jealousies engendered through the sect 
spirit, and the misrepresentations and slanders set 
afloat have hardened men in their sins, who often 
become entirely skeptical as a result.” 

“ That is the result of the narrowness of the scaffold¬ 
ing upon which we have all been trying to work,” said 
Mr. B. 

“ One of the prominent evils which has arrested my 
attention,” said Mr. P., “ is the waste of the funds of 
our Missionary Boards, in sustaining two or more men 
to do the work that one cou-d do as well, simply for 
the sake of denominational interests.” 

“ And this state of things exists all over the land,” 
I remarked, “not only in the newer States at the 
West, but in all the older States, as well. Thus the 
aggregate of this waste is enormous.” 

“ Have we any statistics by which we can estimate 
the amount of this waste,” said Mr. B. 

“ I know of none,” I replied. “ It is matter hard to 
get at. We can only make a rough estimate at the 
best.” 

“What do you estimate the amount of this waste?” 
Mr. B. inquired. 

26 


402 


APPENDIX. 


“ Well, brethren,” I replied, “ my estimate may be 
far from accurate, but I have set it at over two millions 
of dollars, annually, in our own country, and probably 
as much more in England. But the loss of this amount 
of money is only half the evil. We must consider 
the waste of the time and talents of at least three 
or four thousand men, in our country, who are really 
supernumerary in the fields they attempt to occupy.” 

“ Probably your estimate is quite too low,” said 
Mr. P. 

“Two millions of money and the time of three 
thousand men!’ 7 said Mr. B., with emphasis. “Why, 
with such an added force to our foreign missionary 
work, the world would soon be won to Christ.” 

“And such would be the beneficial results of the 
reform I advocate. And if all the Advocates and other 
denominational papers of our country would seriously 
advocate this subject, it would take but a few years 
to work this reform to the happiest results,” I replied. 

To these conclusions my three clerical friends 
assented. Here our conversations ended. Soon after 
which we parted, each returning to his home. 


UNION CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF LINWOOD 
AND MOUNT LOOKOUT. 


Below we give the basis of Union and fellowship of 
the Union Christian Church of Linwood and Mount 
Lookout, Hamilton Co., Ohio, of which Rev. W. C. 
McCune was for some time pastor. It was for organ¬ 
izing this Church, and acting as its pastor that Mr. 
McCune was accused of disloyalty to Presbyterianism; 
and, after a trial lasting thirteen days, acquitted by 
the Cincinnati Presbytery. 

We invite the reader to give it a careful examination, 
as it contains declarations vital to visible Christian 
and Church union. 

The following resolution was adopted by the meet¬ 
ings held at Mount Lookout, Nov. 8, and at Linwood, 
Nov. 10, 1875. 

Resolved , That the following Declaration and Pre¬ 
liminary statements be printed with the Basis of Fel¬ 
lowship, but their approval constitutes no part of the 
terms of fellowship in the Union Christian Church of 
Linwood and Mount Lookout. 

DECLARATION. 

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is sole King 
and Lawgiver in his Church Universal, and that He 
looks upon all believers as one body, one vine, one 
( 403 ) 



404 


APPENDIX. 


flock; and that He has left on record no provision in 
the Hew Testament for the organization of different 
denominations. We therefore esteem it a privilege 
and duty to cordially welcome to our Church Fellow¬ 
ship all, as members and ministers, who give credible 
Scriptural evidence that Christ has received them. 

We are also persuaded that inspired Apostles never 
organized different denominations in any community, 
and that they earnestly opposed divisions, which fell 
far short of organized permanent separations. 

We also believe that the spiritual oneness for which 
our Savior prayed is not fully realized where Chris¬ 
tians, living in the same covenient neighborhood, 
refuse to unite in cordial Church Fellowship; and 
where they mutually exclude each other, by diverse 
and contradictory denominational laws concerning 
either doctrines, ordinances, or Church polity. 

We also learn from Christ’s prayer, “That they all 
may be one,” that this oneness should be visible , in 
order that it may convince the world that Jesus in the 
sent of God and the Savior of men. 

We further believe that the law of Christian for¬ 
bearance requires us to forbear with every Christian 
who asks our fellowship as a member in the same 
Church, and that we should concede to him the right 
of private judgment and equal liberty of speech con¬ 
cerning any views he may entertain, which do not 
invalidate the evidence he gives that he is a real dis¬ 
ciple of Christ. 

We are also convinced that we find the law requiring 
visible Christian union in Rom. xv : 7, as well as in 
other Scriptures: “ Wherefore receive ye one another, 


APPENDIX. 


405 


as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” And 
we deem it quite clear that we cannot receive one 
another as this precept requires, and at the same time 
exclude an acknowledged disciple of Christ from one 
of his, Christ’s own Churches. We also believe that 
the precept applies in the case of ministers as well as 
that of members, and that no one who gives Scrip¬ 
tural evidence that he is a minister of the Lord Jesus 
Christ should be excluded from membership in any 
Presbytery, Conference, or Association of ministers 
whatsoever, by any denominational law. 

With these great facts and principles of the New 
Testament in view, we distinctly disclaim any purpose 
on our part to attempt to create the true basis of 
Christian Union. 

The essential graces and qualilications already pos¬ 
sessed by all Christ’s disciples, and all his ministers, of 
which the Holy Spirit is the author, are the true basis. 

We further maintain, that if Christians living in 
any place unite together as a Church of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, receiving all as ministers and members who 
give Scriptural evidence that Christ has received them, 
such a Church is not a sect in any sense whatever. A 
sect is an organization which cuts off, or excludes from 
its fellowship, those whom Christ confessedly receives. 
But the Church that welcomes all who give credible 
evidence that they belong to Christ cannot be a sect. 
If any individual Christian, or any sister Churches 
refuse to accept the fellowship sincerely proffered by a 
.true Christian Union Church, the sin of sectarianism 
rests upon those who reject, and not upon those who 
offer this Christian Fellowship. 


406 


appe: dix. 


And now, believing that existing divisions occasion 
an enormous waste of means in building supernu¬ 
merary Church edifices, and in supporting supernu¬ 
merary services in places almost innumerable in this 
and other lands, and that these needless denomina¬ 
tional Churches are the cause of unutterable weakness 
and discouragement, in the fact that each one stands 
directly in the way of the success of all the others; and 
believing that these divisions are a manifest reproach 
to the cause of Christ, and a lasting excuse for the 
irreligion of the careless and the worldly, and being per¬ 
suaded that these denominational creeds which require 
their members to receive as truth, or perform as duty, 
that which is no part of the common faith taught by 
the Holy Spirit to all Christians, and concerning which 
these creeds contradict each other, do tend much to 
bewilder sincere inquirers concerning that which they 
must do to be saved; and believing that these divisions 
give great advantage to Koman Catholics, on the one 
hand, and to infidels on the other, and being convinced 
that they are directly contrary to Scripture, and in 
many ways hinder the conversion of the world to 
Christ, we feel impelled to utter our protest against 
them. 

Giving to each other evidence that we are Christ’s 
disciples, we propose, by the help of God, to organize 
a Union Christian Church, in accordance with the 
precepts and examples of the Hew Testament. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. 

MEMBERS. 

¥e will, on Scriptural evidence, cordially receive 


APPENDIX. 


407 


into the fellowship of this Church all Christians, and 
we regard all those as such who have a true faith in 
the Lord Jesus Christ. 

But we also believe that all who have faith in Christ 
have experienced the renewing of the Holy Spirit, 
and repentance toward God, and that they obey the 
Gospel, and love Christ and all the brethren. 

And we further believe that our Savior receives as 
his disciples those who do not agree concerning the 
peculiarities of Calvinism or Armenianism, or con¬ 
cerning the various forms of Church polity, or as to 
infant baptism, or believer’s baptism only, or as to 
immersion, or sprinkling, or as to any other denomi¬ 
national peculiarity; and that we should, therefore, 
receive as members all Christians, without requiring 
assent to anything whatever which is not a part of the 
common faith of all Christ’s disciples. 

And at the same time we affectionately counsel 
every Christian to hold fast all the truth he may have 
learned, and to diligently and prayerfully seek to learn 
the whole truth revealed in the Scriptures, while he 
cordially extends forbearance in love to all his brethren 
in the Lord. 


MINISTERS. 

We will receive as ministers all who give us Scrip¬ 
tural evidence that they are, in fact, ministers of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

We will be guided by the following, and other Scrip¬ 
tures, in forming a judgment concerning the qualifica¬ 
tions of ministers of the Gospel: 


408 


APPENDIX. 


This is true saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, 
he desireth a good work. A bishop, then, must be blameless, the 
husband of one wife; vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to 
hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy 
of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that 
ruletli well his own house, having his children in subjection with 
all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, 
how shall he take care of the Church of God ? Not a novice, lest 
being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the 
devil; moreover, he must have a good report of them which are 
without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.— 
1 Tim. iii : 1-7. 

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in 
older the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
city, as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless, the husband 
of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or 
unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God, 
not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not 
given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good 
men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word 
as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, 
both to exhort and convince the gainsayers.— Titus, i: 5-9. 

But we also distinctly learn that it is an unquestion¬ 
able duty to try the “ spirits ” and to reject false 
teachers. 

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether 
they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into 
the world.— 1 John, iv: 1. 

There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall 
bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought 
them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. — 2 Pet. ii : 1. 

As we said before, so say I now again, if any preach any 
other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be 
accursed.—G al. i: 9. 

If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive 
him not into your house; neither bid him God speed, for he that 
biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.—2 John, 
10 , 11 . 


APPENDIX. 


409 


We deem it obligatory, therefore, that we should dis¬ 
charge this duty in some method with prayerful fidel¬ 
ity ; but as no particular method is prescribed, w r e are 
left, as to method, to the exercise of our best Christian 
judgment. 

First. We deem it wholly insufficient that a pro¬ 
fessed minister of Christ should make the mere declar¬ 
ation that lie accepts the Bible as his creed, as many 
false teachers make that declaration. 

Second. Neither do we deem it practicable to 
inquire of a candidate for the ministry concerning the 
sense in which he receives every verse of Scripture, 
from the beginning of the Bible to the end of it. 

Third. It remains that we must either refuse to 
discharge this duty wholly, and receive those who 
bring a false Gospel as cordially as those who bring 
the true; or we must select certain truths of Scrip¬ 
ture of vital importance, and institute an inquiry con¬ 
cerning these. And inasmuch as we believe that those 
ministers commonly known as evangelical are so in 
fact, we deem it wise and practical, and at the same 
time unsectarian and evangelical, to select the truths 
held in common by evangelical ministers as proper 
tests of soundness in the faith on the part of those 
who ask our recognition as ministers of Christ. 

The basis of the World’s Evangelical Alliance is a 
statement of this common faith. It is as follows: 

First. The divine inspiration, authority and suffi¬ 
ciency of the Holy Scriptures. 

Second. The right and duty of private judgment 
in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. 


410 


APPENDIX. 


Third. The unity of the Godhead, and the trinity 
of the persons therein. 

Fourth. The utter depravity of human nature in 
consequence of the fall. 

Fifth. The incarnation of the Son of God, His 
work of atonement for the sins of mankind, and His 
mediatorial intercession and reign. 

Sixth. The justification of the sinner by faith 
alone. 

Seventh. The work of the Holy Spirit in the con¬ 
version and sanctification of the sinner. 

Eighth. The immortality of the soul, the resurrec¬ 
tion of the bodj, the judgment of the world by our 
Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the 
righteous, and the eternal punishment of the wicked. 

Ninth. The divine institution of the Christian 
ministry, and the obligation and perpetuity of the 
ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 

The Evangelical Ministerial Association of Cincin¬ 
nati has also, on two occasions, made a statement of 
this common faith of all evangelical ministers. 

This conscensus concerning the fundamental truths 
of the Gospel is a great reality. It exists now, and 
it has ever existed, and will continue forever. It can 
be expressed at any time. The words may vary, the 
arrangement may be changed, but the vital truths are 
perpetually the same, and they will be cordially be¬ 
lieved by all Christ’s ministers till the end of the 
world. 

We therefore, as a Church, conceive it to be our 
imperative duty, in the first place, to ask evidence, of 
all whom we receive as Christ’s ministers, that they 


APPENDIX. 


411 


accept the whole Bible as an infallible revelation from 
God; and in the second place, that they receive in their 
plain and obvious sense the grea* - truths of Scripture 
which constitute the common faith of all Christ’s 
ministers, commonly known as evangelical. 

And to this end, having invited Christian ministers 
of good repute for soundness in the faith, to aid and 
counsel with us, we deem it sufficient to select from 
the Bible, for the occasion, the great truths of the 
Gospel concerning which evangelical ministers are 
agreed, both as to their fundamental character and as 
to their true sense, or that we should use some clear 
and competent statement of the common faith already 
prayerfully and deliberately made; such as the basis 
of the World’s Evangelical Alliance, as the subject of 
conference with any one whom we are about to receive 
as our pastor, or to send out into the world to preach 
the everlasting Gospel. 

BASIS OF FELLOWSHIP. 

I. 

We will cordially receive as members, into the fel¬ 
lowship of this Church, all Christians, and none other, 
in so far as we shall be able to judge, and we will con¬ 
cede the rights of private judgment and liberty of 
speech alike to all whom we do receive. 

II. 

We will receive as ministers of Christ, to unre¬ 
stricted fellowship, all who are in fact Christ’s minis¬ 
ters, in so far as we may be able to judge. And we 


412 


APPENDIX. 


will accept their assent to the common faith of Christ’s 
ministers, commonly known as evangelical, as suffi¬ 
cient evidence of their soundness in the faith. 

Note. —We believe that these principles, above expressed in 
this Basis, are the principles of Church fellowship clearly re¬ 
vealed in the New Testament, and they express the only condi¬ 
tions of fellowship in this Union Christian Church of Linwood 
and Mt. Lookout. 

All that precedes this Basis, and all that follows, we consider 
suitable accompaniments; but the Basis alone contains the con¬ 
ditions of our fellowship. 

REGULATIONS OF EXPEDIENCY. 

In carrying out the great principles of our fellow¬ 
ship in practice, there are many things, such as the 
time and place of Church meetings, and of prayer 
meetings, the election of officers, the manner of receiv¬ 
ing members and exercising discipline, concerning 
which the majority should always prevail; but nothing 
should be made obligatory on the consciences of the 
minority. 

And we consider it legitimate for this or any other 
Church to make such regulations of expediency as 
occasion may require. 

FIRST ENROLLMENT OF MEMBERS. 

First. All who give evidence that they are mem¬ 
bers in good standing in some evangelical Church, and 
that they approve the principles of the above Basis of 
Fellowship, shall, at their request, be enrolled. 

Second. All others shall be enrolled on credible 
profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and 


APPENDIX. 


413 


an approval of tlie principles of the Basis of Fellow¬ 
ship. 

CHURCH OFFICERS. 

First. We deem it expedient to elect certain of 
our number for one or more years, to whom we will 
especially commit the spiritual oversight of this- 
Church, in conjunction with the pastor. 

Applications for membership may be made to the 
pastor and these overseers, who shall report to the 
Church for final action. 

We also deem it expedient that admonition of the 
erring, and the investigation of all cases of discipline, 
should be especially committed to the pastor and these 
overseers of the flock. 

But in all cases of withdrawal of fellowship from 
any who may deny the faith, or walk disorderly, they 
should report to the Church for final decision. 

Second. We further consider it expedient that the 
care of the poor and the financial affairs of this Church 
should be specially committed to certain other breth¬ 
ren, elected for one year or more, for this service. 
These brethren should elect a Treasurer, and be tho 
responsible financial board of this Church. 

ELECTIONS. 

The election of pastor and all other officers shall bo 
by ballot, and all members, male and female, are en¬ 
titled to vote. 

The annual meeting for the election of officers and 
the transaction of congregational business shall be held 
jointly. The first meeting shall be held at Linwood, 


414 


APPENDIX. 


and the second at Mt. Lookout, and thereafter at each 
place alternately. 

The first election of officers in this Church shall take 
place-. 

The officers then elected shall hold office until the 
annual election in January, 1877. 

The annual election shall be held on the first Wed¬ 
nesday evening subsequent to the week of prayer. 

The first order of the meeting shall be to hear the 
annual reports of the brethren who have charge, re¬ 
spectively, of the spiritual and financial interests of 
the Church. 

The next order shall be the election of officers. 
This meeting shall elect a Chairman and Clerk, to 
serve for one year. 

Special elections may be held at any time to fill 
vacancies. 

Notice of elections shall be given to the congrega¬ 
tion on some convenient Lord’s day, at least ten days 
preceding. 

A request of the majority of the members voting 
at a meeting duly called for that purpose, that an officer 
shall resign, must be granted. 

FELLOWSHIP WITH OTHER CHURCHES. 

This Church cordially recognizes all Churches com¬ 
monly known as evangelical, as Churches of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and desires to maintain Christian fellow¬ 
ship with them in all things as God gives us oppor¬ 
tunity. 

But we recognize as Union Christian Churches those 
Churches which receive into unrestricted fellowship 



APPENDIX. 


415 


all Christ’s disciples and Christ’s ministers, and none 
other, in so far as they may be able to judge; and with 
these Churches we desire most heartily and fraternally 
to co-operate in the promotion of Christian Union and 
the salvation of the world. 


CHUECH UNITY ASSOCIATIONS. 


In order more fully to promote the work of visible 
Church unity, it seems needful that some plan shall be 
adopted by which the friends of the cause may con¬ 
centrate their influence and labors. This can be done 
by organizing Church Unity Associations in each city, 
village and country hamlet in all the land. Such asso¬ 
ciations should be composed of members of all the 
different Churches of the place who are willing to unite 
in promoting brotherly love, and working for so desir¬ 
able an object as visible unity. 

It should be organized on the basis of the Young 
Men’s Christian Associations. Like them it should 
seek to unite the spiritual forces of all the Churches, 
in healing divisions, and in all suitable ways of pre¬ 
paring the way by which organic unity shall be brought 
into harmony with spiritual oneness. This can be done 
by prayer and conference, by securing lecturers from 
time to time, and by circulating religious books and 
papers devoted to this object. The plan should also 
contemplate a National Association, to which all the 
State, county, village and parish associations might 
become auxiliary, and which should be the radiating 
focus of light on the subject of visible Christian and 
Church Unity. 


(416) 



APPENDIX. 


417 


The following is proposed as the model of a Con¬ 
stitution and By-Laws for a local association, but sus¬ 
ceptible of such alterations as shall lit it for a National, 
State, County, or Village Association: 

Article I. 

This organization shall be known as the Church - 

Unity Association of-. (Auxiliary to 

-, etc.) 

Article II. 

The object of this Association is the promotion of 
visible Church unity among all Christians in all the 
world, by Christian conference, by securing lecturers 
from time to time, by showing up the evils of divisions, 
and the way to remove them, and by the circulation 
of books and periodicals designed to throw light upon 
the subject. 

Article III. 

Members of the various Evangelical Churches, and 
others who favor the object of this Association, may 
become members by signing this Constitution, and 
paying such voluntary sums toward promoting its 
object as each may feel able to give. 

Article IV. 

Membership in this Association is not designed to 
interfere in any way with the duties each may owe to 
the Church with which he or she may be respectively 
connected. 

27 




418 


APPENDIX. 


Article Y. 

The officers of this Association shall be a President, 
and as many Yice-Presidents as there shall be different 
Churches represented in the organization; a Record¬ 
ing and a Corresponding Secretary, a Treasurer, and 
an Executive Committee, whose duties shall be such as 
commonly attach to these offices, respectively, and 
who shall hold their offices for one year, and until 
others are elected to fill their places. 

Article YI. 

The time for the annual and other stated meetings 
shall be determined by the majority of its members, as 
also its place of meeting. 

Article YII. 

Its meetings shall be open to all who may wish to 
attend; but there shall be no discussion upon disputed 
points of speculative theology, or the manner of per¬ 
forming Christian duty, further than to remove them 
out of the way of visible union, by remanding them 
to the realm of private opinion; and all discussions 
shall be conducted in a kind, fraternal spirit, and 
nothing which shall hinder brotherly love and Chris¬ 
tian fellowship shall be allowed in its meetings. 

Article YII1. 

This Constitution may be altered or amended at 
any annual or specially called meeting for that pur¬ 
pose, ample previous notice having been given of the 


APPENDIX. 


419 


desired change, two-thirds of the members present 
voting in its favor. 


By-Laws. 

1. The Annual Meeting of the Association shall 

be held-, at which time the Recording and Cor¬ 

responding Secretaries, and the Treasurer, shall each 
make a written report of their departments, and at 
which meeting the Chairman shall nominate, and the 
brethren elect an auditor, to inspect and report to the 
meeting upon the accounts of the Recording Secretary 
and Treasurer. 

2. The Executive Committee shall be composed of 
all the officers of the Association. It shall be their 
duty to watch over the interests of the Association, 
prepare topics for discussion, and through the Corre¬ 
sponding Secretary employ lecturers from time to time, 
and recommend such books and papers for circulation 
among the people as they shall deem calculated to 
promote the object of the organization. 

3. The Stated Meetings of the body shall be held 

on-of each month, at — o’clock p. m. 

4. All its meetings shall be opened with reading 
the Scriptures and prayer, under the direction of the 
Moderator, and shall be closed by singing. 

5. All sums collected for the use of the Associa¬ 
tion shall be counted and recorded by the Recording 
Secretary, and paid over to the Treasurer, who shall 
receipt for the same. 

6. All moneys paid out shall be by the consent ot 
the brotherhood, and on the order of the President; 
but a proposition to appropriate funds for any object in 




420 


APPENDIX. 


tlie order of Associational work shall be considered as 
receiving the sanction of the members present, unless 
some one objects, in which case it shall be put to 
popular vote, when the wishes of the majority shall 
rule. 

Note. —Any other By-Laws can be added from time to time, as 
the local necessities may seem to require. 








































